THE  GENERAL  PACT 


FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


TEXT  OF  THE  PACT  AS  SIGNED 
NOTES  AND  OTHER  PAPERS 


distributed  BY 

foreign  police  associate 

18  EAST  4lst  STREET,  NEW  YORK 


UNITED  STATES 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
WASHINGTON 
1928 


ADDITIONAL  COPIES 

OF  THIS  PUBLICATION  MAY  BE  PROCURED  FROM 
THE  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  DOCUMENTS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

AT 

15  CENTS  PER  COPY 


CONTENTS 


Page 


General  Pact  for  the  Renunciation  of  War. — Signed  at  Paris, 

August  27,  1928 1 

Notes  Exchanged  between  the  United  States  and  other  Powers, 

June  20,  1927-August  27,  1928 4 

Draft  of  pact  of  perpetual  friendship  between  France  and  the  United 

States,  June  20,  1927 4 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  French  Ambassador  (Claudel),  December 

28,  1927 5 

The  French  Ambassador  (Claudel)  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  January 

5,  1928 . 6 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  French  Ambassador  (Claudel),  January 

11,  1928 8 

The  French  Ambassador  (Claudel)  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  January 

21,  1928 10 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  French  Ambassador  (Claudel),  February 

27,  1928 12 

The  French  Ambassador  (Claudel)  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  March  30, 

1928 15 

Note  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  Governments  of 
Great  Britain,  Germany,  Italy,  and  Japan,  delivered  at  the 

respective  Foreign  Offices  April  13,  1928 19 

Draft  of  proposed  treaty  submitted  by  the  Government  of  France  to 
the  Governments  of  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Italy,  Japan,  and  the 

United  States  on  April  20,  1928 21 

The  German  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Stresemann)  to  the  American 

Ambassador  (Schurman),  April  27,  1928 23 

The  Italian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Mussolini)  to  the  American 

Ambassador  (Fletcher),  May  4,  1928 25 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain)  to  the 

American  Ambassador  (Houghton),  May  19,  1928 26 

The  Minister  in  Canada  (Phillips)  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  External 

Affairs  (Mackenzie  King),  May  22,  1928 29 

The  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Tanaka)  to  the  American 

Ambassador  (MacVeagh),  May  26,  1928 30 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  New  Zealand,  to  the  American  Charg6 

(Atherton),  May  30,  1928 31 

The  Irish  Free  State  Minister  for  External  Affairs  (McGilligan)  to  the 

American  Minister  (Sterling),  May  30,  1928 32 

The  Canadian  Secretary  of  State  for  External  Affairs  (Mackenzie  King) 

to  the  American  Minister  (Phillips),  May  30,  1928 32 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on  be- 
half of  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  to  the  American  Charg6 

(Atherton),  June  2,  1928 34 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  India,  to  the  American  Charg6  (Ather- 
ton), June  11,  1928 35 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  to  the  American  Chargd 
(Atherton),  June  15,  1928 35 


iii 


IV 


CONTENTS 


Page 


Notes  Exchanged  between  the  United  States  and  other  Powers, 

June  20,  1927-August  27,  1928 — Continued. 

Note  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  Governments  of 
Australia,  Belgium,  Canada,  Czechoslovakia,  France,  Germany, 

Great  Britain,  India,  Irish  Free  State,  Italy,  Japan,  New  Zealand, 

Poland,  and  South  Africa,  June  23,  1928 36 

The  Polish  Vice  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Wysocki)  to  the  American 

Minister  (Stetson),  July  8,  1928 42 

The  German  State  Secretary  (Schubert)  to  the  American  Ambassador 

(Schurman),  July  11,  1928 43 

The  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Briand)  to  the  American 

Ambassador  (Herrick),  July  14,  1928 43 

The  Irish  Free  State  Minister  for  External  Affairs  (McGilligan)  to  the 

American  Minister  (Sterling),  July  14,  1928 45 

The  Italian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Mussolini)  to  the  American 

Ambassador  (Fletcher),  July  15,  1928 46 

The  Canadian  Secretary  of  State  for  External  Affairs  (Mackenzie  King) 

to  the  American  Minister  (Phillips),  July  16,  1928 46 

The  Belgian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Hymans)  to  the  American 

Ambassador  (Gibson),  July  17,  1928 46 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain)  to  the 

American  Charg6  (Atherton),  July  18,  1928 47 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  to  the  American  Chargd 

(Atherton),  July  18,  1928 48 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  India,  to  the  American  Charg6 

(Atherton),  July  18,  1928 49 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  New  Zealand,  to  the  American 

Charge  (Atherton),  July  18,  1928 50 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain),  on 
behalf  of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  to  the  American  Charg6 

(Atherton),  July  18,  1928  50 

The  Czechoslovak  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Bene§)  to  the  American 

Minister  (Einstein),  July  20,  1928 51 

The  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Tanaka)  to  the  American 

Charg6  (Neville),  July  20,  1928 53 


Note  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  adherence  to  the  General 
Pact  for  the  Renunciation  of  War. — Addressed  to  Albania,  Af- 
ghanistan, Argentina,  Austria,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Bulgaria,  Chile, 
China,  Colombia,  Costa  Rica,  Cuba,  Denmark,  Dominican  Re- 
public, Ecuador,  Egypt,  Estonia,  Ethiopia,  Finland,  Greece,  Guate- 
mala, Haiti,  Honduras,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Latvia,  Liberia, 


Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  Mexico,  Netherlands,  Nicaragua,  Norway, 
Panamd,  Paraguay,  Persia,  Peru,  Portugal,  Rumania,  Salvador, 
Kingdom  of  the  Serbs,  Croats  and  Slovenes,  Siam,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Switzerland,  Turkey,  Uruguay,  and  Venezuela,  August  27,  1928 54 

Addresses  of  the  Honorable  Frank  B.  Kellogg,  Secretary  of 

State 57 

The  war-prevention  policy  of  the  United  States 57 

The  French  draft  of  the  multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war..  66 

Negotiations  for  the  conclusion  of  a treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war..  69 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF 
WAR.— SIGNED  AT  PARIS  AUGUST  27,  1928 


The  President  of  the  German  Reich,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Belgians,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  French  Republic,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain, 
Ireland  and  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of 
India,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy,  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of 
Japan,  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Poland,  the  President  of  the 
Czechoslovak  Republic, 

Deeply  sensible  of  their  solemn  duty  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
mankind; 

Persuaded  that  the  time  has  come  when  a frank  renunciation  of 
war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  should  be  made  to  the  end 
that  the  peaceful  and  friendly  relations  now  existing  between  their 
peoples  may  be  perpetuated; 

Convinced  that  all  changes  in  their  relations  with  one  another 
should  be  sought  only  by  pacific  means  and  be  the  result  of  a peaceful 
and  orderly  process,  and  that  any  signatory  Power  which  shall 
hereafter  seek  to  promote  its  national  interests  by  resort  to  war  should 
be  denied  the  benefits  furnished  by  this  Treaty; 

Hopeful  that,  encouraged  by  their  example,  all  the  other  nations 
of  the  world  will  join  in  this  humane  endeavor  and  by  adhering  to 
the  present  Treaty  as  soon  as  it  comes  into  force  bring  their  peoples 
within  the  scope  of  its  beneficent  provisions,  thus  uniting  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  world  in  a common  renunciation  of  war  as  an  instru- 
ment of  their  national  policy; 

Have  decided  to  conclude  a Treaty  and  for  that  purpose  have 
appointed  as  their  respective  Plenipotentiaries : 

The  President  of  the  German  Reich: 

Dr  Gustav  Stresemann,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs; 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America: 

The  Honorable  Frank  B.  Kellogg,  Secretary  of  State; 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Belgians: 

Mr.  Paul  Hymans,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Minister  of  State; 

The  President  of  the  French  Republic: 

Mr.  Aristide  Briand,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs; 

1 


2 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the  British 
Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India: 

For  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  and  all  parts  of  the 
British  Empire  which  are  not  separate  Members  of  the  League 
of  Nations: 

The  Right  Honourable  Lord  Cushendun,  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy 
of  Lancaster,  Acting  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs; 

For  the  Dominion  of  Canada: 

The  Right  Honourable  William  Lyon  Mackenzie  King,  Prime 
Minister  and  Minister  for  External  Affairs; 

For  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia: 

The  Honourable  Alexander  John  McLachlan,  Member  of  the  Execu- 
tive Federal  Council; 

For  the  Dominion  of  New  Zealand: 

The  Honourable  Sir  Christopher  James  Parr,  High  Commissioner 
for  New  Zealand  in  Great  Britain; 

For  the  Union  of  South  Africa: 

The  Honourable  Jacobus  Stephanus  Smit,  High  Commissioner  for 
the  Union  of  South  Africa  in  Great  Britain; 

For  the  Irish  Free  State: 

Mr.  William  Thomas  Cosgrave,  President  of  the  Executive  Council; 
For  India: 

The  Right  Honourable  Lord  Cushendun,  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy 
of  Lancaster,  Acting  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs; 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy: 

Count  Gaetano  Manzoni,  his  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Pleni- 
potentiary at  Paris. 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan: 

Count  Uchida,  Privy  Councillor; 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Poland: 

Mr.  A.  Zaleski,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs; 

The  President  of  the  Czechoslovak  Republic: 

Dr  Eduard  Benes,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs; 

who,  having  communicated  to  one  another  their  full  powers  found  in 
good  and  due  form  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  1 

The  High  Contracting  Parties  solemnly  declare  in  the  names  of 
their  respective  peoples  that  they  condemn  recourse  to  war  for  the 
solution  of  international  controversies,  and  renounce  it  as  an  instru- 
ment of  national  policy  in  their  relations  with  one  another. 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


3 


Article  2 

The  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that  the  settlement  or  solution 
of  all  disputes  or  conflicts  of  whatever  nature  or  of  whatever  origin 
they  may  be,  which  may  arise  among  them,  shall  never  be  sought 
except  by  pacific  means. 

Article  3 

The  present  Treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  the  High  Contracting 
Parties  named  in  the  Preamble  in  accordance  with  their  respective 
constitutional  requirements,  and  shall  take  effect  as  between  them 
as  soon  as  all  their  several  instruments  of  ratification  shall  have  been 
deposited  at  Washington. 

This  Treaty  shall,  when  it  has  come  into  effect  as  prescribed  in 
the  preceding  paragraph,  remain  open  as  long  as  may  be  necessary 
for  adherence  by  all  the  other  Powers  of  the  world.  Every  instru- 
ment evidencing  the  adherence  of  a Power  shall  be  deposited  at 
Washington  and  the  Treaty  shall  immediately  upon  such  deposit 
become  effective  as  between  the  Power  thus  adhering  and  the  other 
Powers  parties  hereto. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to 
furnish  each  Government  named  in  the  Preamble  and  every  Govern- 
ment subsequently  adhering  to  this  Treaty  with  a certified  copy  of 
the  Treaty  and  of  every  instrument  of  ratification  or  adherence.  It 
shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  tele- 
graphically to  notify  such  Governments  immediately  upon  the  deposit 
with  it  of  each  instrument  of  ratification  or  adherence. 


In  faith  whereof  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries  have  signed  this 
Treaty  in  the  French  and  English  languages  both  texts  having  equal 
force,  and  hereunto  affix  their  seals. 

Done  at  Paris,  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  August  in  the  year  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty-eight. 

[seal]  Gustav  Stresemann  [seal] 

[seal]  Frank  B Kellogg  [seal] 

[seal]  Paul  Hymans  [seal] 

[seal]  Ari  Briand  [seal] 

[seal]  Cushendun  [seal] 

[seal]  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King  [seal] 

[seal]  A J McLachlan  [seal] 

[seal]  C.  J.  Parr 


J S.  Smit 

Liam  T.  MacCosgair 
Cushendun 
G.  Manzoni 

UcHIDA 

August  Zaleski 
DR  Eduard  Benes 


NOTES  EXCHANGED  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED 
STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS,  JUNE  20,  1927- 
AUGUST  27,  1928 

Draft  of  pact  of  perpetual  friendship  between  France  and  the  United 

States  1 

[Translation] 

June  20,  1927. 

The  President  of  the  French  Republic  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States  of  America, 

Equally  desirous  of  affirming  the  solidarity  of  the  French  people 
and  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  their  wish  for  peace 
and  in  their  renunciation  of  a recourse  to  arms  as  an  instrument  of 
their  policy  towards  each  other, 

And  having  come  to  an  agreement  to  consecrate  in  a solemn  act 
these  sentiments  as  much  in  accord  with  the  progress  of  modern 
democracies  as  with  the  mutual  friendship  and  esteem  of  two  nations 
that  no  war  has  ever  divided  and  which  the  defense  of  liberty  and 
justice  has  always  drawn  closer, 

Have  to  this  end  designated  for  their  plenipotentiaries,  to  wit: 

The  President  of  the  French  Republic  : 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America : 

Who,  after  having  exchanged  their  powers,  recognized  in  good  and 
due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  provisions: 

Article  1 

The  high  contracting  powers  solemnly  declare,  in  the  name  of  the 
French  people  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  that 
they  condemn  recourse  to  war  and  renounce  it  respectively  as  on 
instrument  of  their  national  policy  towards  each  other. 

Article  2 

The  settlement  or  the  solution  of  all  disputes  or  conflicts,  of  what- 
ever nature  or  of  whatever  origin  they  may  be,  which  may  arise  be- 
tween France  and  the  United  States  of  America,  shall  never  be 
sought  by  either  side  except  by  pacific  means. 

1 Transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  State  by  M.  Briand  through  the  American 
Ambassador  at  Paris. 


4 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS 


5 


Article  3 

The  present  act  shall  be  ratified.  The  ratifications  thereof  shall 

be  exchanged  at as  soon  as  possible  and  from  that  time 

it  shall  have  full  force  and  value. 

In  witness  whereof  the  above-named  plenipotentiaries  have  signed 
the  present  act  and  have  thereunto  set  their  seal. 

Done  at in  two  copies  (each  drawn  up  both  in  French 

and  English  and  having  equal  force),  the nineteen  hun- 

dred and  twenty-seven. 

(Signatures  and  seals) 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  French  Ambassador  ( Claudel ) 

Washington,  December  28,  1927. 

Excellency:  I have  the  honor  to  refer  to  the  form  of  treaty 
entitled  “Draft  of  pact  of  perpetual  friendship  between  France  and 
the  United  States,”  which  his  excellency  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  was  good  enough  to  transmit  to  me  informally  last  June 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  American  Ambassador  at  Paris. 

This  draft  treaty  proposes  that  the  two  powers  should  solemnly 
declare  in  the  name  of  their  respective  peoples  that  they  condemn 
recourse  to  war,  renounce  it  as  an  instrument  of  their  national 
policy  towards  each  other,  and  agree  that  a settlement  of  disputes 
arising  between  them,  of  whatsoever  nature  or  origin  they  may  be, 
shall  never  be  sought  by  either  party  except  through  pacific  means. 
I have  given  the  most  careful  consideration  to  this  proposal  and  take 
this  occasion  warmly  to  reciprocate  on  behalf  of  the  American  people 
the  lofty  sentiments  of  friendship  which  inspired  the  French  people, 
through  his  excellency  M.  Briand,  to  suggest  the  proposed  treaty. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  welcomes  every  opportunity 
for  joining  with  the  other  governments  of  the  world  in  condemning 
war  and  pledging  anew  its  faith  in  arbitration.  It  is  firmly  of  the 
opinion  that  every  international  endorsement  of  arbitration,  and 
every  treaty  repudiating  the  idea  of  a resort  to  arms  for  the  settle- 
ment of  justiciable  disputes,  materially  advances  the  cause  of  world 
peace.  My  views  on  this  subject  find  a concrete  expression  in  the 
form  of  the  arbitration  treaty  which  I have  proposed  in  my  note  to 
you  of  December  28,  1927,  to  take  the  place  of  the  arbitration  con- 
vention of  1908.  The  proposed  treaty  extends  the  scope  of  that 
convention  and  records  the  unmistakable  determination  of  the  two 
Governments  to  prevent  any  breach  in  the  friendly  relations  which 
have  subsisted  between  them  for  so  long  a period. 

In  view  of  the  traditional  friendship  between  France  and  the  United 
States — a friendship  which  happily  is  not  dependent  upon  the  exist- 
12387—28 2 


6 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


ence  of  any  formal  engagement — and  in  view  of  the  common  desire 
of  the  two  nations  never  to  resort  to  arms  in  the  settlement  of  such 
controversies  as  may  possibly  arise  between  them,  which  is  recorded 
in  the  draft  arbitration  treaty  just  referred  to,  it  has  occurred  to 
me  that  the  two  Governments,  instead  of  contenting  themselves 
with  a bilateral  declaration  of  the  nature  suggested  by  M.  Briand, 
might  make  a more  signal  contribution  to  world  peace  by  joining 
in  an  effort  to  obtain  the  adherence  of  all  of  the  principal  powers  of 
the  world  to  a declaration  renouncing  war  as  an  instrument  of  national 
policy.  Such  a declaration,  if  executed  by  the  principal  world  powers, 
could  not  but  be  an  impressive  example  to  all  the  other  nations  of 
the  world,  and  might  conceivably  lead  such  nations  to  subscribe  in 
their  turn  to  the  same  instrument,  thus  perfecting  among  all  the 
powers  of  the  world  an  arrangement  heretofore  suggested  only  as 
between  France  and  the  United  States. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  prepared,  therefore,  to 
concert  with  the  Government  of  France  with  a view  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  a treaty  among  the  principal  powers  of  the  world,  open  to 
signature  by  all  nations,  condemning  war  and  renouncing  it  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy  in  favor  of  the  pacific  settlement  of 
international  disputes.  If  the  Government  of  France  is  willing  to 
join  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  this  endeavor,  and 
to  enter  with  the  United  States  and  the  other  principal  powers  of  the 
world  into  an  appropriate  multilateral  treaty,  I shall  be  happy  to 
engage  at  once  in  conversations  looking  to  the  preparation  of  a draft 
treaty  following  the  lines  suggested  by  M.  Briand  for  submission  by 
France  and  the  United  States  jointly  to  the  other  nations  of  the 
world. 

Accept  [etc.] 

Frank  B.  Kellogg 


The  French  Ambassador  ( Claudel ) to  the  Secretary  of  State 

[Translation] 

Washington,  January  5,  1928. 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  By  a letter  of  December  28  last, 
your  excellency  was  kind  enough  to  make  known  the  sentiments 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  concerning  the  suggestion 
of  a treaty  proposed  by  the  Government  of  the  Republic  in  the 
month  of  June  1927,  with  a view  to  the  condemnation  of  war  and  the 
renunciation  thereof  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  between 
France  and  the  United  States. 

According  to  your  excellency,  the  two  governments,  instead 
of  limiting  themselves  to  a bilateral  treaty,  would  contribute  more 
fully  to  the  peace  of  the  world  by  uniting  their  efforts  to  obtain  the 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS 


7 


adhesion  of  all  the  principal  powers  of  the  world  to  a declaration 
renouncing  war  as  an  instrument  of  their  national  policy. 

Such  a declaration,  if  it  were  subscribed  to  by  the  principal  powers, 
could  not  fail  to  be  an  impressive  example  to  all  the  nations  of  the 
world  and  might  very  well  lead  them  to  subscribe  in  their  turn  to  the 
same  pact,  thus  bringing  into  effect  as  among  all  the  nations  of  the 
world  an  arrangement  which  at  first  was  only  suggested  as  between 
France  and  the  United  States. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  therefore,  would  be  disposed 
to  join  the  Government  of  the  Republic  with  a view  to  concluding 
a treaty  between  the  principal  powers  of  the  world  which,  open  to  the 
signature  of  all  nations,  would  condemn  war,  would  contain  a decla- 
ration to  renounce  it  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  and  would 
substitute  therefor  the  pacific  settlement  of  disputes  between  nations. 

Your  excellency  added  that  if  the  Government  of  the  Republic 
agrees  thus  to  join  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the 
other  principal  powers  of  the  world  in  an  appropriate  multilateral 
treaty,  your  excellency  would  be  happy  to  undertake  immediately 
conversations  leading  to  the  elaboration  of  a draft  inspired  by  the 
suggestions  of  M.  Briand  and  destined  to  be  proposed  jointly  by 
France  and  the  United  States  to  the  other  nations  of  the  world. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  appreciated  sincerely  the  favor- 
able reception  given  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the 
proposal  of  M.  Briand.  It  believes  that  the  procedure  suggested 
by  your  excellency  and  carried  out  in  a manner  agreeable  to  public 
opinion  and  to  the  popular  sentiment  of  the  different  nations  would 
appear  to  be  of  such  nature  as  to  satisfy  the  views  of  the  French 
Government.  It  would  be  advantageous  immediately  to  sanction  the 
general  character  of  this  procedure  by  affixing  the  signatures  of 
France  and  the  United  States. 

I am  authorized  to  inform  you  that  the  Government  of  the  Republic 
is  disposed  to  join  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
proposing  for  agreement  by  all  nations  a treaty  to  be  signed  at  the 
present  time  by  France  and  the  United  States  and  under  the  terms 
of  which  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  renounce  all  war  of  aggres- 
sion and  shall  declare  that  for  the  settlement  of  differences  of  whatever 
nature  which  may  arise  between  them  they  will  employ  all  pacific 
means.  The  high  contracting  parties  will  engage  to  bring  this 
treaty  to  the  attention  of  all  states  and  invite  them  to  adhere. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  is  convinced  that  the  principles 
thus  proclaimed  cannot  but  be  received  with  gratitude  by  the  entire 
world,  and  it  does  not  doubt  that  the  efforts  of  the  two  governments 
to  insure  universal  adoption  will  be  crowned  with  full  success. 

Accept  [etc.] 


Claudel 


8 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


The  Secretary  oj  State  to  the  French  Ambassador  ( Claudel ) 

Washington,  January  11,  1928. 

Excellency:  In  the  reply  which  your  Government  was  good 
enough  to  make  to  my  note  of  December  28,  1927,  his  excellency 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  summarized  briefly  the  proposal  pre- 
sented by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  stated  that 
it  appeared  to  be  of  such  a nature  as  to  satisfy  the  views  of  the 
French  Government.  In  these  circumstances  he  added  that  the 
Government  of  the  Republic  was  disposed  to  join  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  in  proposing  for  acceptance  by  all  nations 
a treaty  to  be  signed  at  the  present  time  by  France  and  the  United 
States,  under  the  terms  of  which  the  high  contracting  parties  should 
renounce  all  wars  of  aggression  and  should  declare  that  they  would 
employ  all  peaceful  means  for  the  settlement  of  any  differences  that 
might  arise  between  them. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  deeply  gratified  that  the 
Government  of  France  has  seen  its  way  clear  to  accept  in  principle 
its  proposal  that,  instead  of  the  bilateral  pact  originally  suggested  by 
M.  Briand,  there  be  negotiated  among  the  principal  powers  of  the 
world  an  equivalent  multilateral  treaty  open  to  signature  by  all 
nations.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  a multilateral  treaty  would 
be  a far  more  effective  instrument  for  the  promotion  of  pacific  rela- 
tions than  a mere  agreement  between  France  and  the  United  States 
alone,  and  if  the  present  efforts  of  the  two  Governments  achieve 
ultimate  success,  they  will  have  made  a memorable  contribution  to 
the  cause  of  world  peace. 

While  the  Government  of  France  and  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  are  now  closely  in  accord  so  far  as  the  multilateral 
feature  of  the  proposed  treaty  is  concerned,  the  language  of  M. 
Briand's  note  of  January  5,  1928,  is  in  two  respects  open  to  an 
interpretation  not  in  harmony  with  the  idea  which  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  had  in  mind  when  it  submitted  to  you  the 
proposition  outlined  in  my  note  of  December  28,  1927.  In  the  first 
place,  it  appears  to  be  the  thought  of  your  Government  that  the 
proposed  multilateral  treaty  be  signed  in  the  first  instance  by  France 
and  the  United  States  alone  and  then  submitted  to  the  other  powers 
for  their  acceptance.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  this  procedure  is  open  to  the  objection  that  a treaty, 
even  though  acceptable  to  France  and  the  United  States,  might  for 
some  reason  be  unacceptable  to  one  of  the  other  great  powers.  In 
such  event  the  treaty  could  not  come  into  force  and  the  present 
efforts  of  France  and  the  United  States  would  be  rendered  abortive. 
This  unhappy  result  would  not  necessarily  follow  a disagreement  as 
to  terminology  arising  prior  to  the  definitive  approval  by  any  Gov- 
ernment of  a proposed  form  of  treaty,  since  it  is  by  no  means  un- 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS 


9 


reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  views  of  the  governments  concerned 
could  be  accommodated  through  informal  preliminary  discussions 
and  a text  devised  which  would  be  acceptable  to  them  all.  Both 
France  and  the  United  States  are  too  deeply  interested  in  the  success 
of  their  endeavors  for  the  advancement  of  peace  to  be  willing  to 
jeopardize  the  ultimate  accomplishment  of  their  purpose  by  incurring 
unnecessary  risk  of  disagreement  with  the  other  powers  concerned, 
and  I have  no  doubt  that  your  Government  will  be  entirely  agreeable 
to  joining  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  govern- 
ments of  the  other  powers  concerned  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  a 
preliminary  agreement  as  to  the  language  to  be  used  in  the  proposed 
treaty,  thus  obviating  all  danger  of  confronting  the  other  powers 
with  a definitive  treaty  unacceptable  to  them.  As  indicated  below, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  be  pleased  if  the  Govern- 
ment of  France  would  agree  that  the  draft  treaty  submitted  by 
M.  Briand  last  June  should  be  made  the  basis  of  such  preliminary 
discussions. 

In  the  second  place,  and  this  point  is  closely  related  to  what  goes 
before,  M.  Briand’s  reply  of  January  5,  1928,  in  expressing  the 
willingness  of  the  Government  of  France  to  join  with  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  in  proposing  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  re- 
nunciation of  war,  apparently  contemplates  that  the  scope  of  such 
treaty  should  be  limited  to  wars  of  aggression.  The  form  of  treaty 
which  your  Government  submitted  to  me  last  June  which  was  the 
subject  of  my  note  of  December  28,  1927,  contained  no  such  qualifi- 
cation or  limitation.  On  the  contrary  it  provided  unequivocally 
for  the  renunciation  by  the  high  contracting  parties  of  all  war  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy  in  the  following  terms: 

Article  1 

The  high  contracting  powers  solemnly  declare,  in  the  name  of  the  French 
people  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  that  they  condemn 
recourse  to  war  and  renounce  it  respectively  as  an  instrument  of  their  national 
policy  towards  each  other. 

Article  2 

The  settlement  or  the  solution  of  all  disputes  or  conflicts,  of  whatever  nature 
or  of  whatever  origin  they  may  be,  which  may  arise  between  France  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  shall  never  be  sought  by  either  side  except  by  pacific 
means. 

I am  not  informed  of  the  reasons  which  have  led  your  Government 
to  suggest  this  modification  of  its  original  proposal,  but  I earnestly 
hope  that  it  is  of  no  particular  significance  and  that  it  is  not  to  be 
taken  as  an  indication  that  the  Government  of  France  will  find 
itself  unable  to  join  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
proposing,  as  suggested  above,  that  the  original  formula  submitted 
by  M.  Briand  which  envisaged  the  unqualified  renunciation  of  all 


10 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  be  made  the  subject  of  pre- 
liminary discussions  with  the  other  great  powers  for  the  purpose  of 
reaching  a tentative  agreement  as  to  the  language  to  be  used  in  the 
proposed  treaty. 

If  your  Government  is  agreeable  to  the  plan  outlined  above  and 
is  willing  that  further  discussions  of  the  terms  of  the  proposed  multi- 
lateral treaty  be  based  upon  the  original  proposal  submitted  to  me 
by  M.  Briand  last  June,  I have  the  honor  to  suggest  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  France  join  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  a 
communication  to  the  British,  German,  Italian  and  Japanese  Gov- 
ernments transmitting  the  text  of  M.  Briand’s  original  proposal  and 
copies  of  the  subsequent  correspondence  between  the  Governments 
of  France  and  the  United  States  for  their  consideration  and  comment, 
it  being  understood,  of  course,  that  these  preliminary  discussions 
would  in  no  way  commit  any  of  the  participating  Governments 
pending  the  conclusion  of  a definitive  treaty. 

Accept  [etc.] 

Frank  B.  Kellogg 


The  French  Ambassador  ( Claudel ) to  the  Secretary  oj  State 

[Translation] 

Washington,  January  21,  1928. 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  Your  excellency  was  pleased  to  inform 
me  in  your  note  of  the  11th  instant,  of  the  considerations  suggested 
to  you  by  my  letter  of  January  5 in  answer  to  your  communication  of 
December  28,  1927.  My  Government  has  asked  me  to  express  to 
you  its  satisfaction  at  the  harmonizing,  thanks  to  your  excellencj’, 
of  the  views  of  the  two  Governments  concerning  the  best  method  of 
accomplishing  a project  upon  the  essential  principles  of  which  they 
apparently  are  in  agreement. 

The  original  French  proposal  of  June  1927,  contemplating  an  act 
confined  to  France  and  the  United  States,  appeared  to  the  French 
Government  to  be  both  desirable  and  feasible  by  reason  of  the 
historical  relations  between  the  two  Republics. 

The  American  Government  was  only  willing,  however,  to  embody 
the  declaration  proposed  by  the  French  Government  in  the  preamble 
of  the  Franco-American  arbitration  convention  now  in  process  of 
renewal,  and  considered  on  the  other  hand,  for  reasons  of  its  own 
which  the  French  Government  has  not  failed  to  take  into  account, 
that  it  would  be  opportune  to  broaden  this  manifestation  against  war 
and  to  make  it  the  subject  of  a separate  act  in  which  the  other  powers 
would  be  invited  to  participate. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  was  not  opposed  to  this  expansion 
of  its  original  plan,  but  it  could  not  but  realize,  and  it  felt  bound  to 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  11 

point  out  that  the  new  negotiation  as  proposed  would  be  more  complex 
and  likely  to  meet  with  various  difficulties. 

The  question  as  to  whether  there  would  be  any  advantage  in  having 
such  an  instrument,  of  a multipartite  nature,  signed  in  the  first  place 
by  France  and  the  United  States,  or  else  first  elaborated  by  certain 
of  the  principal  powers  of  the  world  and  then  presented  to  all  for 
their  signature,  is  essentially  one  of  procedure. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  offered  a suggestion  upon  this 
point  only  because  of  its  desire  more  speedily  and  more  surely  to 
achieve  the  result  which  it  seeks  in  common  with  the  United  States. 
This  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  it  is  ready  to  concur  in  any  method 
which  may  appear  to  be  the  most  practicable. 

There  is,  however,  a situation  of  fact  to  which  my  Government 
has  requested  me  to  draw  your  particular  attention. 

The  American  Government  cannot  be  unaware  of  the  fact  that 
the  great  majority  of  the  powers  of  the  world,  and  among  them  most 
of  the  principal  powers,  are  making  the  organization  and  strengthen- 
ing of  peace  the  object  of  common  efforts  carried  on  within  the  frame- 
work of  the  League  of  Nations.  They  are  already  bound  to  one 
another  by  a Covenant  placing  them  under  reciprocal  obligations, 
as  well  as  by  agreements  such  as  those  signed  at  Locarno  in  October 
1925,  or  by  international  conventions  relative  to  guaranties  of 
neutrality,  all  of  which  engagements  impose  upon  them  duties  which 
they  cannot  contravene. 

In  particular,  your  excellency  knows  that  all  states  members  of 
the  League  of  Nations  represented  at  Geneva  in  the  month  of  Sep- 
tember last,  adopted,  in  a joint  resolution  tending  to  the  condem- 
nation of  war,  certain  principles  based  on  the  respect  for  the  reciprocal 
rights  and  duties  of  each.  In  that  resolution  the  powers  were  led  to 
specify  that  the  action  to  be  condemned  as  an  international  crime  is 
aggressive  war  and  that  all  peaceful  means  must  be  employed  for 
the  settlement  of  differences,  of  any  nature  whatsoever,  which  might 
arise  between  the  several  states. 

This  is  a condition  of  affairs  which  the  United  States,  while  a 
stranger  thereto,  cannot  decline  to  take  into  consideration,  just  as 
must  any  other  state  called  upon  to  take  part  in  the  negotiation. 

Furthermore,  the  United  States  would  not  in  any  way  be  bound 
thereby  to  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
The  French  proposal  of  June  last  looking  to  the  conclusion  of  a 
bilateral  compact,  had  been  drawn  up  in  the  light  of  the  century-old 
relations  between  France  and  the  United  States;  the  French  Govern- 
ment still  stands  ready  to  negotiate  with  the  American  Government 
on  the  same  conditions  and  on  the  same  basis.  It  has  never  altered 
its  attitude  in  that  respect.  But  when  confronted  by  the  initiative 
of  the  United  States  in  proposing  a multipartite  covenant,  it  had  to 


12 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


take  into  consideration  the  relations  existing  among  the  various 
powers  which  would  be  called  upon  to  participate  therein.  This  it 
has  done,  with  the  object  of  assuring  the  success  of  the  treaty  con- 
templated by  the  United  States.  Its  suggestions  of  January  5 as  to 
the  terms  of  the  multipartite  treaty  are  inspired  by  the  formula  which 
has  already  gained  the  unanimous  adherence  of  all  of  the  states 
members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  which  for  that  very  reason 
might  be  accepted  by  them  with  regard  to  the  United  States,  just 
as  it  has  already  been  accepted  among  themselves. 

This  is  the  explanation  of  our  proposal  of  January  5. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  has  always,  under  all  circum- 
stances, very  clearly  and  without  mental  reservation  declared  its 
readiness  to  join  in  any  declaration  tending  to  denounce  war  as  a 
crime  and  to  set  up  international  sanctions  susceptible  of  preventing 
or  repressing  it.  There  has  been  no  change  in  its  sentiments  in  that 
respect:  its  position  remains  the  same.  Your  excellency  may  there- 
fore be  assured  of  its  sincere  desire  to  respond  to  the  idea  of  the 
American  Government  and  to  second  its  efforts  to  the  full  extent 
compatible  with  the  situation  of  fact  created  by  its  international 
obligations.  It  is  this  preoccupation  which  inspired  the  formula 
proposed  on  January  5,  a formula  which  does  indeed  seem  to  be  the 
most  apt  at  this  time  to  assure  the  accomplishment  of  the  American 
project.  The  Government  of  the  Republic  accordingly  can  not  but 
hope  that  the  American  Government  will  share  this  view.  Subject 
to  these  observations,  the  Government  of  the  Republic  would, 
moreover,  very  gladly  welcome  any  suggestions  offered  by  the 
American  Government  which  would  make  it  possible  to  reconcile  an 
absolute  condemnation  of  war  with  the  engagements  and  obligations 
assumed  by  the  several  nations  and  the  legitimate  concern  for  their 
respective  security. 

Pray  accept  [etc.] 

Claudel 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  French  Ambassador  ( Claudel ) 

Washington,  February  27,  1928. 

Excellency:  Our  recent  discussions  of  the  question  whether  the 
United  States  and  France  could  join  in  suggesting  to  the  other 
principal  powers  of  the  world  the  conclusion  of  a treaty  proscribing 
war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  mutual  relations 
have  been  brought  by  your  note  of  January  21,  1928,  to  a point 
where  it  seems  necessary,  if  success  is  to  be  achieved,  to  examine  the 
problem  from  a practical  point  of  view. 

It  is  evident  from  our  previous  correspondence  that  the  Govern- 
ments of  France  and  the  United  States  are  of  one  mind  in  their 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  13 

earnest  desire  to  initiate  and  promote  a new  international  movement 
for  effective  world  peace,  and  that  they  are  in  agreement  as  to  the 
essential  principles  of  the  procedure  to  be  followed  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  common  purpose.  As  I understand  your  note  of 
January  21,  1928,  the  only  substantial  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the 
unqualified  acceptance  by  France  of  the  proposals  which  I submitted 
in  my  notes  of  December  28,  1927,  and  January  11,  1928,  is  your 
Government’s  doubt  whether  as  a member  of  the  League  of  Nations 
and  a party  to  the  treaties  of  Locarno  and  other  treaties  guaranteeing 
neutrality,  France  can  agree  with  the  United  States  and  the  other 
principal  world  powers  not  to  resort  to  war  in  their  mutual  relations, 
without  ipso  facto  violating  her  present  international  obligations 
under  those  treaties.  In  your  excellency’s  last  note  this  question  was 
suggested  for  consideration. 

Without,  of  course,  undertaking  formally  to  construe  the  present 
treaty  obligations  of  France,  I desire  to  point  out  that  if  those  obliga- 
tions can  be  interpreted  so  as  to  permit  France  to  conclude  a treaty 
with  the  United  States  such  as  that  offered  to  me  last  June  by  M. 
Briand  and  offered  again  in  your  note  of  January  21,  1928,  it  is  not 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  they  can  be  interpreted  with  equal 
justice  so  as  to  permit  France  to  join  with  the  United  States  in  offer- 
ing to  conclude  an  equivalent  multilateral  treaty  with  the  other  princi- 
pal powers  of  the  world.  The  difference  between  the  bilateral  and 
multilateral  form  of  treaty  having  for  its  object  the  unqualified  renun- 
ciation of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy,  seems  to  me  to  be 
one  of  degree  and  not  of  substance.  A Government  free  to  conclude 
such  a bilateral  treaty  should  be  no  less  able  to  become  a party  to  an 
identical  multilateral  treaty  since  it  is  hardly  to  be  presumed  that 
members  of  the  League  of  Nations  are  in  a position  to  do  separately 
something  they  cannot  do  together.  I earnestly  hope,  therefore, 
that  your  Government,  which  admittedly  perceives  no  bar  to  the 
conclusion  of  an  unqualified  antiwar  treaty  with  the  United  States 
alone,  will  be  able  to  satisfy  itself  that  an  equivalent  treaty  among 
the  principal  world  powers  would  be  equally  consistent  with  member- 
ship in  the  League  of  Nations.  If,  however,  members  of  the  League 
of  Nations  cannot,  without  violating  the  terms  of  the  Covenant  of  the 
League,  agree  among  themselves  and  with  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  renounce  war  as  an  instrument  of  their  national 
policy,  it  seems  idle  to  discuss  either  bilateral  or  multilateral  treaties 
unreservedly  renouncing  war.  I am  reluctant  to  believe,  however, 
that  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  really 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  cooperation  of  the  United  States  and  members 
of  the  League  of  Nations  in  a common  effort  to  abolish  the  institu- 
tion of  war.  Of  no  little  interest  in  this  connection  is  the  recent  adop- 
12387—28 3 


14 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


tion  of  a resolution  by  the  Sixth  International  Conference  of  American 
States  expressing  in  the  name  of  the  American  Republics  unqualified 
condemnation  of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their 
mutual  relations.  It  is  significant  to  note  that  of  the  twenty-one 
states  represented  at  the  Conference,  seventeen  are  members  of  the 
League  of  Nations. 

I trust,  therefore,  that  neither  France  nor  any  other  member  of 
the  League  of  Nations  will  finally  decide  that  an  unequivocal  and 
unqualified  renunciation  of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy 
either  violates  the  specific  obligations  imposed  by  the  Covenant  or 
conflicts  with  the  fundamental  idea  and  purpose  of  the  League  of 
Nations.  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  entirely  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  a formal  engagement  of  this  character  entered  into  by  all  of  the 
principal  powers,  and  ultimately,  I trust,  by  the  entire  family  of 
nations,  would  be  a most  effective  instrument  for  promoting  the 
great  ideal  of  peace  which  the  League  itself  has  so  closely  at  heart? 
If,  however,  such  a declaration  were  accompanied  by  definitions  of 
the  word  “aggressor”  and  by  exceptions  and  qualifications  stipulating 
when  nations  would  be  justified  in  going  to  war,  its  effect  would  be 
very  greatly  weakened  and  its  positive  value  as  a guaranty  of  peace 
virtually  destroyed.  The  ideal  which  inspires  the  effort  so  sincerely 
and  so  hopefully  put  forward  by  your  Government  and  mine  is  arrest- 
ing and  appealing  just  because  of  its  purity  and  simplicity;  and  I 
cannot  avoid  the  feeling  that  if  governments  should  publicly  acknowl- 
edge that  they  can  only  deal  with  this  ideal  in  a technical  spirit  and 
must  insist  upon  the  adoption  of  reservations  impairing,  if  not 
utterly  destroying  the  true  significance  of  their  common  endeavors, 
they  would  be  in  effect  only  recording  their  impotence,  to  the  keen 
disappointment  of  mankind  in  general. 

From  the  broad  standpoint  of  humanity  and  civilization,  all  war 
is  an  assault  upon  the  stability  of  human  society,  and  should  be  sup- 
pressed in  the  common  interest.  The  Government  of  the  United 
States  desires  to  see  the  institution  of  war  abolished,  and  stands 
ready  to  conclude  with  the  French,  British,  Italian,  German  and 
Japanese  Governments  a single  multilateral  treaty  open  to  subse- 
quent adherence  by  any  and  all  other  governments,  binding  the 
parties  thereto  not  to  resort  to  war  with  one  another.  The  precise 
language  to  be  employed  in  such  a treaty  is  a matter  of  indifference 
to  the  United  States  so  long  as  it  clearly  and  unmistakably  sets  forth 
the  determination  of  the  parties  to  abolish  war  among  themselves. 
I therefore  renew  the  suggestion  contained  in  my  note  of  January  11, 
1928,  that  the  Government  of  France  join  with  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  in  transmitting  to  the  British,  Italian,  German 
and  Japanese  Governments  for  their  consideration  and  comment  the 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  15 

text  of  M.  Briand’s  original  proposal,  together  with  copies  of  the 
subsequent  correspondence  between  France  and  the  United  States  as 
a basis  for  preliminary  discussions  looking  to  the  conclusion  of  an 
appropriate  multilateral  treaty  proscribing  recourse  to  war. 

Accept  [etc.] 

Frank  B.  Kellogg 


The  French,  Ambassador  ( Claudel ) to  the  Secretary  of  State 

[Translation] 

Washington,  March  80,  1928. 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  In  reply  to  your  note  of  February  27 
last  regarding  the  proposal  for  a multilateral  treaty  proscribing  war, 
I have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  that  M.  Briand  has  been 
pleased  to  find  in  the  observations  which  you  have  submitted  for  his 
consideration  a new  and  cordial  affirmation  of  the  common  inspira- 
tion which  animates  our  two  Governments  equally  anxious  to  coop- 
erate in  an  international  movement  toward  the  effective  establish- 
ment of  peace  in  the  world.  Assured  of  such  a solidarity  in  the 
pursuit  of  an  identical  purpose,  M.  Briand  remains  convinced,  as 
does  your  excellency,  that  a mutually  acceptable  formula  may  well 
result  from  the  exchange  of  views  which  has  taken  place  up  to  now 
between  our  two  Governments,  if  on  both  sides  there  is  a disposition 
to  adhere  to  those  essential  realities  which  must  be  preserved  in  this 
discussion,  by  subordinating  thereto  those  differences  of  form  to 
which  questions  of  terminology  not  affecting  the  substance  of  the 
discussion  may  upon  analysis  be  reduced. 

That  is  to  say,  that  the  French  Government  at  this  point  of  the 
discussion,  when  all  the  aspects  of  the  problem  have  been  examined, 
proposes  to  adopt  as  practical  a point  of  view  as  possible  and  to 
facilitate  as  far  as  it  can  the  effort  of  the  American  Government  in 
the  direction  of  an  immediate  decision. 

The  observations  which  M.  Briand  has  ventured  to  offer  in  support 
of  his  last  suggestion  were  inspired  by  a very  sincere  desire  to  facilitate 
in  a practical  manner  the  realization  of  the  proposal  for  the  contem- 
plated multilateral  treaty  by  pointing  out  the  conditions  best  adapted 
to  bring  about  the  consent  thereto  of  all  the  Governments  whose 
agreement  is  necessary.  The  French  wording,  therefore,  tending 
to  limit  to  war  of  aggression  the  proscription  proposed  in  the  form 
of  a multilateral  rather  than  a bilateral  treaty,  was  intended  to 
obviate  in  so  far  as  the  American  plan  was  concerned  those  serious 
difficulties  which  would  assuredly  be  encountered  in  practice.  In 
order  to  pay  due  regard  to  the  international  obligations  of  the  signa- 
tories, it  was  not  possible,  as  soon  as  it  became  a question  of  a multi- 
lateral treaty,  to  impart  thereto  the  unconditional  character  desired 


16 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


by  your  excellency  without  facing  the  necessity  of  obtaining  the 
unanimous  adherence  of  all  the  existing  states,  or  at  least  of  all  the 
interested  states,  that  is  to  say,  those  which  by  reason  of  their  situ- 
ation are  exposed  to  the  possibility  of  a conflict  with  any  one  of  the 
contracting  states.  In  the  relations  between  the  states  of  the  Amer- 
ican Continent  there  are  similar  difficulties  which  led  the  American 
Government  at  the  Pan  American  Conference  at  Habana  to  approve 
a resolution  limited  to  the  very  terms  “war  of  aggression”  which 
the  French  Government  felt  compelled  to  use  in  characterizing  the 
renunciation  to  which  it  was  requested  to  bind  itself  by  means  of  a 
multilateral  treaty.  To  be  sure,  the  same  reservation  does  not 
appear  in  another  resolution  to  which  your  excellency  referred  in 
your  note  of  February  27,  but  it  must  be  observed  that  this  resolution 
in  itself  constituted  only  a kind  of  preliminary  tending  toward  a 
treaty  of  arbitration  with  regard  to  which  numerous  reservations 
were  formulated. 

Your  excellency  appears  to  have  been  surprised  that  France 
should  not  be  able  to  conclude  with  all  the  powers  in  the  form  of  a 
multilateral  treaty  the  same  treaty  which  she  offered  to  conclude 
separately  with  the  United  States  in  the  form  of  a bilateral  treaty. 
My  Government  believes  that  it  has  explained  this  point  with  suffi- 
cient clearness  in  recalling  the  fact  that  the  project  of  a treaty  of 
perpetual  friendship  between  France  and  the  United  States  proposed 
last  June  was  drafted  in  such  a way  as  to  limit  strictly  the  mutual 
undertakings  which  it  contained  to  those  relations  in  law  resulting 
from  intercourse  between  the  two  signatory  states  alone.  Within 
such  limits  an  absolutely  unconditional  agreement  might  be  entered 
into,  since  that  agreement  would  not  expose  the  signatories,  as  would 
a multilateral  treaty,  to  juridical  difficulties  resulting  from  the 
respective  positions  of  various  powers  with  regard  to  one  another, 
and  since  furthermore,  as  regards  two  countries  like  France  and  the 
United  States  morally  united  as  they  are  by  ties  of  time-honored 
friendship,  other  contractual  engagements  concluded  by  one  or  the 
other  power  could  never  constitute  in  fact  anything  but  purely 
theoretical  obstacles. 

In  order  to  attain  the  result  which  your  excellency  has  in  view, 
you  have  considered  it  preferable  to  adhere  to  the  conception  of  a 
multilateral  treaty,  and  you  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  insist  that 
even  in  the  multilateral  form  the  proposed  treaty  should  include  an 
unconditional  pledge.  If  your  excellency  really  believes  that 
greater  chances  of  success  may  be  found  in  this  formula  in  spite  of 
the  consequences  which  it  involves,  especially  the  necessity  of  attain- 
ing a treaty  world-wide  in  its  scope,  the  French  Government  would 
hesitate  to  discuss  longer  the  question  of  its  adherence  to  a plan 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  17 

which  the  American  Government  originated  and  for  which  it  is 
responsible.  Without  in  any  way  losing  sight  of  its  international 
obligations,  both  as  a member  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  as  a 
party  to  the  treaties  of  Locarno  or  treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality, 
France,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  a common  basis  for  initial  nego- 
tiations, is  wholly  disposed,  after  a new  examination  of  the  proposals 
formulated  by  your  excellency,  to  suggest  immediately  to  the 
German,  British,  Italian  and  Japanese  Governments  that  they  join 
in  seeking,  in  the  spirit  and  in  the  letter  of  the  last  American  note, 
any  adjustments  which  in  the  last  analysis  may  be  forthcoming  with 
respect  to  the  possibility  of  reconciling  previous  obligations  with 
the  terms  of  the  contemplated  new  treaty. 

The  French  Government  notes  at  once  with  satisfaction  that  while 
advocating  the  conclusion  among  the  Governments  specifically 
mentioned  of  a treaty  binding  the  signatories  not  to  resort  to  war, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  admits  the  participation  in 
that  treaty  of  all  the  other  governments  of  the  world.  This  concep- 
tion accords  with  a reservation  actually  necessary  for  obtaining  a 
real  instrument  for  the  establishment  of  peace  by  means  of  a formal  en- 
gagement among  all  powers  among  whom  political  controversies  may 
arise.  Such  an  engagement  would  in  fact  involve  the  risk  of  exposing 
the  signatories  to  dangers  and  misunderstandings  unless  based  upon 
the  complete  equality  in  the  application  of  the  treaty  among  them- 
selves of  all  the  states  with  respect  to  other  states  and  not  only  upon 
the  equality  of  certain  states  among  them.  The  treaty  contemplated 
could  not  operate  in  respect  of  one  power  which  is  a party  thereto 
unless  the  other  states  exposed  to  the  possibility  of  grave  controversies 
with  that  party  were  also  signatories  thereof. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  clear  that  in  order  not  to  turn  an  instrument 
of  progress  and  peace  into  a means  of  oppression,  if  one  of  the  signa- 
tory states  should  fail  to  keep  its  word,  the  other  signatories  should  be 
released  from  their  engagement  with  respect  to  the  offending  state. 
On  this  second  point,  as  on  the  first,  the  French  Government  believes 
itself  fully  in  accord  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

My  Government  likewise  gathers  from  the  declarations  which 
your  excellency  was  good  enough  to  make  to  me  on  the  first  of  last 
March,  the  assurance  that  the  renunciation  of  war,  thus  proclaimed, 
would  not  deprive  the  signatories  of  the  right  of  legitimate  defense. 
Such  an  interpretation  tends  to  dissipate  apprehensions,  and  the 
French  Government  is  happy  to  note  it. 

If  such  is  the  attitude  of  the  American  Government  on  these  three 
fundamental  points,  and  if  it  is  clearly  understood  in  a general  way 
that  the  obligations  of  the  new  pact  should  not  be  substituted  for, 
or  prejudice  in  any  way,  previous  obligations  contained  in  interna- 
tional instruments  such  as  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations, 


18 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


the  Locarno  agreements  or  treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality  whose 
character  and  scope  can  not  be  modified  thereby,  then  the  differences 
of  opinion  which  have  appeared  in  the  course  of  previous  phases  of 
the  negotiation  have  to  do  more  with  words  than  with  the  reality  of 
the  problem  facing  the  two  Governments  to-day. 

Hence,  in  accordance  with  the  proposal  contained  in  your  note  of 
January  11,  which  you  kindly  renewed  in  your  note  of  the  27th  of 
February,  the  French  Government  would  be  prepared  forthwith  to 
join  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  submitting  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Governments  of  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy 
and  Japan,  the  correspondence  exchanged  between  France  and  the 
United  States  since  June  1927,  and  in  proposing  at  the  same  time 
for  the  assent  of  the  four  Governments,  a draft  agreement  essen- 
tially corresponding  in  purpose  to  the  original  proposal  of  M.  Briand, 
in  the  multipartite  form  desired  by  the  United  States  with  the  changes 
of  wording  made  necessary  by  the  new  concept;  the  signatory  powers 
of  such  an  instrument,  while  not  prejudicing  their  rights  of  legitimate 
defense  within  the  framework  of  existing  treaties,  should  make  a 
solemn  declaration  condemning  recourse  to  war  as  an  instrument  of 
national  policy,  or  in  other  words  as  a means  of  carrying  out  their 
own  spontaneous,  independent  policy. 

They  would  specifically  undertake,  among  themselves,  to  refrain 
from  any  attack  or  invasion,  and  never  to  seek  the  settlement  of 
any  difference  or  conflict  of  whatsoever  nature  or  origin  which  might 
arise  between  them  save  by  pacific  means.  It  would,  however,  be 
clearly  understood  that  an  obligation  could  only  exist  for  the  signa- 
tories in  the  event  that  the  engagement  were  contracted  by  all 
states,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  treaty,  open  to  the  accession  of  all 
powers,  would  only  come  into  force  after  having  received  universal 
acceptance,  unless  the  powers  having  signed  this  treaty  or  acceded 
thereto  should  agree  upon  its  coming  into  force,  despite  certain 
abstentions.  Finally,  in  case  one  of  the  contracting  powers  should 
happen  to  contravene  the  treaty,  the  other  contracting  powers  would 
be  automatically  relieved,  with  respect  to  that  power,  of  the  obliga- 
tions contained  in  the  treaty. 

It  is  in  this  form,  it  would  seem,  that  the  negotiation  of  a plan  for 
a multilateral  pact  such  as  conceived  by  the  American  Government 
could  be  pursued  with  the  greatest  chances  of  success.  Your  excel- 
lency may  be  assured,  in  any  case,  in  the  conduct  of  this  negotiation 
of  the  most  sincere  and  most  complete  collaboration  of  my  Govern- 
ment which  is  always  ready  to  associate  itself  without  ambiguity  or 
reservation,  with  any  solemn  and  formal  undertaking  tending  to 
insure,  strengthen  or  extend  the  effective  solidarity  of  the  nations 
in  the  cause  of  peace. 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  19 

In  responding  to  these  ideas,  whose  happy  inspiration  cannot  be 
gainsaid,  France  would  feel  confident  that  she  was  continuing  the 
work  to  which  she  has  never  ceased  to  apply  herself  in  her  foreign 
policy,  and,  faithful  to  her  previous  international  engagements  of 
that  nature,  that  she  was  contributing  nobly,  as  your  excellency 
has  said,  in  “promoting  the  great  ideal  of  peace  which  the  League 
itself  has  so  closely  at  heart.” 

Pray  accept  [etc.] 

Claudel 

Note  oi  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  Governments  of  Great 
Britain,  Germany,  Italy,  and  Japan,  delivered  at  the  respective 
Foreign  Offices  April  13,  1928 

As  your  excellency  is  aware,  there  has  recently  been  exchanged 
between  the  Governments  of  France  and  the  United  States  a series 
of  notes  dealing  with  the  question  of  a possible  international  renun- 
ciation of  war.  The  views  of  the  two  Governments  have  been  clearly 
set  forth  in  the  correspondence  between  them. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  as  stated  in  its  note  of 
February  27,  1928,  desires  to  see  the  institution  of  war  abolished 
and  stands  ready  to  conclude  with  the  French,  British,  German, 
Italian  and  Japanese  Governments  a single  multilateral  treaty  open 
to  subsequent  adherence  by  any  and  all  other  governments  binding 
the  parties  thereto  not  to  resort  to  war  with  one  another. 

The  Government  of  the  French  Republic,  while  no  less  eager 
to  promote  the  cause  of  world  peace  and  to  cooperate  with  other 
nations  in  any  practical  movement  towards  that  end,  has  pointed 
out  certain  considerations  which  in  its  opinion  must  be  borne  in  mind 
by  those  powers  which  are  members  of  the  League  of  Nations, 
parties  to  the  treaties  of  Locarno,  or  parties  to  other  treaties  guar- 
anteeing neutrality.  My  Government  has  not  conceded  that  such 
considerations  necessitate  any  modification  of  its  proposal  for  a 
multilateral  treaty,  and  is  of  the  opinion  that  every  nation  in  the 
world  can,  with  a proper  regard  for  its  own  interests,  as  well  as  for 
the  interests  of  the  entire  family  of  nations,  join  in  such  a treaty. 
It  believes,  moreover,  that  the  execution  by  France,  Great  Britain, 
Germany,  Italy,  Japan  and  the  LTiited  States  of  a treaty  solemnly 
renouncing  war  in  favor  of  the  pacific  settlement  of  international 
controversies  would  have  tremendous  moral  effect  and  ultimately 
lead  to  the  adherence  of  all  the  other  governments  of  the  world. 

The  discussions  which  have  taken  place  between  France  and  the 
L'nited  States  have  thus  reached  a point  where  it  seems  essential,  if 
ultimate  success  is  to  be  attained,  that  the  British,  German,  Italian 
and  Japanese  Governments  should  each  have  an  opportunity  formally 
to  decide  to  what  extent,  if  any,  its  existing  commitments  constitute 
a bar  to  its  participation  with  the  United  States  in  an  unqualified 


20 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


renunciation  of  war.  In  these  circumstances  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  having  reached  complete  agreement  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  French  Republic  as  to  this  procedure,  has  instructed  me 
formally  to  transmit  herewith  for  the  consideration  of  your  Govern- 
ment the  text  of  M.  Briand’s  original  proposal  of  last  June,  together 
with  copies  of  the  notes  subsequently  exchanged  between  France  and 
the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  a multilateral  treaty  for  the 
renunciation  of  war. 

I have  also  been  instructed  by  my  Government  to  transmit  here- 
with for  consideration  a preliminary  draft  of  a treaty  representing  in 
a general  way  the  form  of  treaty  which  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  prepared  to  sign  with  the  French,  British,  German,  Italian 
and  Japanese  Governments  and  any  other  Governments  similarly 
disposed.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  language  of  Articles  1 and  2 of 
this  draft  treaty  is  practically  identical  with  that  of  the  corresponding 
articles  in  the  treaty  which  M.  Briand  proposed  to  the  United  States. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  would  be  pleased  to  be 
informed  as  promptly  as  may  be  convenient  whether  your  excellency’s 
Government  is  in  a position  to  give  favorable  consideration  to  the  con- 
clusion of  a treaty  such  as  that  transmitted  herewith,  and  if  not,  what 
specific  modifications  in  the  text  thereof  would  make  it  acceptable. 

Suggested  draft  treaty 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  President  of  the  French 
Republic,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the  British 
Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India,  the  President  of  the  German 
Empire,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy,  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan; 

Deeply  sensible  that  their  high  office  imposes  upon  them  a solemn  duty  to 
promote  the  welfare  of  mankind; 

Inspired  by  a common  desire  not  only  to  perpetuate  the  peaceful  and  friendly 
relations  now  happily  subsisting  between  their  peoples  but  also  to  prevent  war 
among  any  of  the  nations  of  the  world; 

Desirous  by  formal  act  to  bear  unmistakable  witness  that  they  condemn  war 
as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  and  renounce  it  in  favor  of  the  pacific  settle- 
ment of  international  disputes; 

Hopeful  that,  encouraged  by  their  example,  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world 
will  join  in  this  humane  endeavor  and  by  adhering  to  the  present  treaty  as  soon 
as  it  comes  into  force  bring  their  peoples  within  the  scope  of  its  beneficent  pro- 
visions, thus  uniting  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world  in  a common  renunciation 
of  war  as  an  instrument  of  their  national  policy; 

Have  decided  to  conclude  a treaty  and  for  that  purpose  have  appointed  as 
their  respective  plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America: 

The  President  of  the  French  Republic: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the  British  Dominions 
beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India: 

The  President  of  the  German  Empire: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy: 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan: 

Who,  having  communicated  to  one  another  their  full  powers  found  in  good  and 
due  form  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHEE  POWEKS  21 


Article  1 

The  high  contracting  parties  solemnly  declare  in  the  names  of  their  respective 
peoples  that  they  condemn  recourse  to  war  for  the  solution  of  international 
controversies,  and  renounce  it  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  relations 
with  one  another. 

Article  2 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  settlement  or  solution  of  all  disputes 
or  conflicts  of  whatever  nature  or  of  whatever  origin  they  may  be,  which  may 
arise  among  them,  shall  never  be  sought  except  by  pacific  means. 

Article  3 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  the  high  contracting  parties  named  in 
the  preamble  in  accordance  with  their  respective  constitutional  requirements, 
and  shall  take  effect  as  between  them  as  soon  as  all  their  several  instruments  of 
ratification  shall  have  been  deposited  at 

This  treaty  shall,  when  it  has  come  into  effect  as  prescribed  in  the  preceding 
paragraph,  remain  open  as  long  as  may  be  necessary  for  adherence  by  all  the  other 
powers  of  the  world.  Every  instrument  evidencing  the  adherence  of  a power 

shall  be  deposited  at and  the  treaty  shall  immediately  upon  such 

deposit  become  effective  as  between  the  power  thus  adhering  and  the  other  powers 
parties  hereto. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  of to  furnish  each  Govern- 

ment named  in  the  preamble  and  every  Government  subsequently  adhering  to 
this  treaty  with  a certified  copy  of  the  treaty  and  of  every  instrument  of  ratifica- 
tion or  adherence.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  of 

telegraphically  to  notify  such  Governments  immediately  upon  the  deposit  with  it 
of  each  instrument  of  ratification  or  adherence. 

In  faith  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  this  treaty  in  the 
French  and  English  languages,  both  texts  having  equal  force,  and  hereunto 
affix  their  seals. 

Done  at the day  of in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty 


Draft  of  'proposed  treaty  submitted  by  the  Government  of  France  to  the 
Governments  of  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Italy,  Japan,  and  the 
United  States  on  April  20,  1928 

[Translation] 

The  President  of  the  German  Empire,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  President  of  the  French  Republic,  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  England,  Ireland  and  the  British  Dominions,  Emperor 
of  India,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy,  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of 
Japan: 

Equally  desirous  not  only  of  perpetuating  the  happy  relations 
of  peace  and  friendship  now  existing  among  their  peoples,  but  also 
of  avoiding  the  danger  of  war  between  all  other  nations  of  the  world, 
Having  agreed  to  consecrate  in  a solemn  act  their  most  formal 
and  most  definite  resolution  to  condemn  war  as  an  instrument  of 
national  policy  and  to  renounce  it  in  favor  of  a peaceful  settlement 
of  international  conflicts, 

12387—28 4 


22 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


Expressing,  finally,  the  hope  that  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world 
will  be  willing  to  join  in  this  humane  effort  to  bring  about  the  associa- 
tion of  the  civilized  peoples  in  a common  renunciation  of  war  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy,  have  decided  to  conclude  a treaty  and 
to  that  end  have  designated  as  their  respective  plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  the  German  Empire: 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America: 

The  President  of  the  French  Republic: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the  British 

Dominions,  Emperor  of  India: 

His  Majesty  the  Kang  of  Italy: 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan: 

Who,  after  exchanging  their  full  powers  found  to  be  in  good  and  due 
form,  have  agreed  on  the  following  provisions: 

Article  1 

The  high  contracting  parties  without  any  intention  to  infringe 
upon  the  exercise  of  their  rights  of  legitimate  self-defense  within  the 
framework  of  existing  treaties,  particularly  when  the  violation  of 
certain  of  the  provisions  of  such  treaties  constitutes  a hostile  act, 
solemnly  declare  that  they  condemn  recourse  to  war  and  renounce 
it  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy;  that  is  to  say,  as  an  instrument 
of  individual,  spontaneous  and  independent  political  action  taken  on 
their  own  initiative  and  not  action  in  respect  of  which  they  might 
become  involved  through  the  obligation  of  a treaty  such  as  the  Cove- 
nant of  the  League  of  Nations  or  any  other  treaty  registered  with 
the  League  of  Nations.  They  undertake  on  these  conditions  not  to 
attack  or  invade  one  another. 

Article  2 

The  settlement  or  solution  of  all  disputes  or  conflicts,  of  whatever 
nature  or  origin,  which  might  arise  among  the  high  contracting  parties 
or  between  any  two  of  them,  shall  never  be  sought  on  either  side 
except  by  pacific  methods. 

Article  3 

In  case  one  of  the  high  contracting  parties  should  contravene  this 
treaty,  the  other  contracting  powers  would  ipsojado  be  released  with 
respect  to  that  party  from  their  obligations  under  this  treaty. 

Article  4 

The  provisions  of  this  treaty  in  no  wise  affect  the  rights  and  obli- 
gations of  the  contracting  parties  resulting  from  prior  international 
agreements  to  which  they  are  parties. 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  23 
Article  5 

The  present  treaty  will  be  offered  for  the  accession  of  all  powers 
and  will  have  no  binding  force  until  it  has  been  generally  accepted 
unless  the  signatory  powers  in  accord  with  those  that  may  accede 
hereto  shall  agree  to  decide  that  it  shall  come  into  effect  regardless 
of  certain  abstentions. 

Article  6 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified. 

The  ratifications  shall  be  deposited  at ; within  three 

months  from  the  date  of  the  deposit  of  the  ratifications  it  shall  be 

communicated  by  the  Government  of to  all  the  powers 

with  an  invitation  to  accede. 

The  Government  of will  transmit  to  each  of  the  signa- 

tory powers  and  the  powers  that  have  acceded  a duly  certified  copy 
of  the  instruments  of  accession  as  they  are  received. 

One  year  after  the  expiration  of  the  three  months’  period  provided 

in  Article  5,  the  Government  of will  send  out  a statement 

of  the  signatories  and  accessions  to  all  the  powers  that  have  signed  or 
acceded. 

In  witness  whereof  the  above-named  plenipotentiaries  have  signed 
this  treaty  and  sealed  it  with  their  seal. 

Done  at in copies,  drawn  up  in  French  and 

English  and  having  equal  force. 

, 1928. 

The  German  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  ( Stresemann ) to  the  American 
Ambassador  ( Schurman ) 

[Translation] 

Berlin,  A-pril  27,  1928. 

Mr.  Ambassador:  In  the  note  of  April  13  and  its  enclosures  your 
excellency  informed  me  of  the  negotiations  between  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Government  of  France  re- 
garding the  conclusion  of  an  international  pact  for  the  outlawry  of 
war.  At  the  same  time  you  asked  me  the  question  whether  the 
German  Government  was  disposed  to  conclude  such  a pact  in  accord- 
ance with  the  draft  put  forward  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  or  whether  it  considered  certain  changes  in  this  draft  necessary. 

The  German  Government  has  studied  the  question  put  by  you  with 
the  care  appropriate  to  the  extraordinary  importance  of  the  matter. 
It  was  possible  also  in  this  study  to  take  into  consideration  the  draft 
treaty  which  had  been  drawn  up  in  the  meantime  by  the  French 
Government  and  handed  to  the  participating  powers.  As  a result 
of  this  study  I have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  of  the  follow- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  German  Government: 


24 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


The  German  Government  welcomes  most  warmly  the  opening  of 
negotiations  for  the  conclusion  of  an  international  pact  for  the  out- 
lawry of  war.  The  two  main  ideas  on  which  are  based  the  initiative 
of  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  resulting  proposal 
of  the  United  States  correspond  fully  to  the  principles  of  German 
policy.  Germany  has  no  higher  interest  than  to  see  the  possibility 
of  armed  conflicts  eliminated  and  a development  assured  in  the  life 
of  the  nations  which  would  guarantee  the  peaceful  settlement  of  all 
international  disputes.  The  conclusion  of  a pact  such  as  the  United 
States  now  has  in  view  would  certainly  bring  the  nations  a good  deal 
nearer  to  this  goal. 

As  the  need  of  the  nations  for  the  assurance  of  peace  since  the 
World  War  has  already  led  to  other  international  agreements,  the 
necessity  arises  for  the  states  concerned  to  make  a decision  as  to  the 
relationship  in  which  the  pact  now  being  planned  would  stand  to 
these  international  agreements  which  are  already  in  effect.  You 
have  already,  Mr.  Ambassador,  referred  in  your  note  to  the  con- 
siderations which  were  put  forward  in  this  connection  by  the  French 
Government  in  its  exchange  of  views  with  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  So  far  as  Germany  is  concerned,  the  Covenant  of 
the  League  of  Nations  and  the  Rhine  pact  of  Locarno  come  into 
consideration  as  international  agreements  which  might  affect  the 
substance  of  the  new  pact;  other  international  obligations  of  this 
kind  have  not  been  entered  into  by  Germany.  Respect  for  the  obli- 
gations arising  from  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  the 
Rhine  pact  must  in  the  opinion  of  the  German  Government  remain 
inviolable.  The  German  Government  is,  however,  convinced  that 
these  obligations  contain  nothing  which  could  in  any  way  conflict 
with  the  obligations  provided  for  in  the  draft  treaty  of  the  United 
States.  On  the  contrary,  it  believes  that  the  binding  obligation  not 
to  use  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  could  only  serve  to 
strengthen  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations  and  of  the  Rhine  pact. 

The  German  Government  proceeds  on  the  belief  that  a pact 
after  the  pattern  submitted  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
would  not  put  in  question  the  sovereign  right  of  any  state  to  defend 
itself.  It  is  self-evident  that  if  one  state  violates  the  pact  the  other 
contracting  parties  regain  their  freedom  of  action  with  reference  to 
that  state.  The  state  affected  by  the  violation  of  the  pact  is  there- 
fore not  prevented  from  taking  up  arms  on  its  own  part  against  the 
breaker  of  the  peace.  In  a pact  of  this  kind  to  provide  expressly  for 
the  case  of  a violation  seems  to  the  German  Government  unnecessary. 

In  agreement  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  with 
the  French  Government,  the  German  Government  is  also  of  the 
opinion  that  the  ultimate  goal  must  be  the  universality  of  the  new 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  25 

pact.  In  order  to  bring  about  this  universality,  the  draft  treaty  of 
the  United  States  seems  to  open  a practical  way.  When  the  states 
first  coming  into  question  as  signatory  powers  have  concluded 
the  pact  it  may  be  expected  that  the  other  states  will  thereupon 
make  use  of  the  right  of  adhesion  which  is  assured  to  them  without 
limitation  or  condition. 

The  German  Government  can  accordingly  declare  that  it  is  ready 
to  conclude  a pact  in  accordance  with  the  proposal  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  and  to  this  end  to  enter  into  the  necessary  negoti- 
ations with  the  Governments  concerned.  To  this  declaration  the 
German  Government  adds,  moreover,  its  definite  expectation  that 
the  realization  of  a pact  of  such  importance  will  not  fail  to  make  its 
influence  felt  at  once  in  connection  with  the  shaping  of  international 
relations.  Therefore,  this  new  guarantee  for  the  maintenance  of 
peace  must  give  a real  impulse  to  the  efforts  for  the  carrying  out  of 
general  disarmament.  And  further  still,  the  renunciation  of  war 
must  as  a necessary  complement  enlarge  the  possibilities  of  settling 
in  a peaceful  way  the  existing  and  potential  conflicts  of  national 
interests. 

Accept  fetc.l 

Stresemann 


The  Italian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  ( Mussolini ) to  the  American 
Ambassador  ( Fletcher ) 

[Translation] 

Rome,  May  4,  1928. 

Mr.  Ambassador:  I have  the  honor  to  refer  to  my  note  of  April  23d 
relative  to  the  proposal  of  the  United  States  Government  regarding 
a multilateral  antiwar  treaty. 

I hardly  need  to  assure  you  that  Italy,  adhering  to  the  policy 
which  she  is  constantly  following,  has  welcomed  with  lively  sym- 
pathy this  initiative  and  offers  very  willingly  her  cordial  collabora- 
tion towards  reaching  an  agreement. 

Your  excellency  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  there  is  under  considera- 
tion the  proposal  for  a preliminary  meeting  of  the  legal  experts  of  the 
powers  whose  direct  interest  in  the  proposed  treaty  has  been  enlisted. 
The  Royal  Government  has  adhered  to  this  procedure,  but  has  clearly 
pointed  out  that,  in  its  opinion,  such  a meeting  can  only  be  effective 
if  the  participation  of  a legal  expert  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  assured. 

In  accordance  with  this  order  of  ideas,  I beg  your  excellency  to 
communicate  to  Mr.  Kellogg  the  live  desire  of  the  Royal  Govern- 
ment that  the  participation  of  the  United  States  in  the  preliminary 
meeting  mentioned  above  be  not  lacking. 

I avail  [etc.] 


Mussolini 


26 


GENERAL,  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ) to  the 
American  Ambassador  ( Houghton ) 

London,  May  19,  1928. 

Your  Excellency:  Your  note  of  the  13th  April,  containing  the 
text  of  a draft  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war,  together  with  copies 
of  correspondence  between  the  United  States  and  French  Govern- 
ments on  the  subject  of  this  treaty,  has  been  receiving  sympathetic 
consideration  at  the  hands  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great 
Britain.  A note  has  also  been  received  from  the  French  Government, 
containing  certain  suggestions  for  discussion  in  connexion  with  the 
proposed  treaty,  and  the  German  Government  were  good  enough  to 
send  me  a copy  of  the  reply  which  has  been  made  by  them  to  the 
proposals  of  the  United  States  Government. 

2.  The  suggestion  for  the  conclusion  of  a treaty  for  the  renuncia- 
tion of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  has  evoked  widespread 
interest  in  this  country,  and  His  Majesty’s  Government  will  support 
the  movement  to  the  utmost  of  their  power. 

3.  After  making  a careful  study  of  the  text  contained  in  your 
excellency’s  note  and  of  the  amended  text  suggested  in  the  French 
note,  His  Majesty’s  Government  feel  convinced  that  there  is  no 
serious  divergence  between  the  effect  of  these  two  drafts.  This 
impression  is  confirmed  by  a study  of  the  text  of  the  speech  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  to  which  your  excellency 
drew  my  attention,  and  which  he  delivered  before  the  American 
Society  of  International  Law  on  the  28th  April.  The  aim  of  the 
United  States  Government,  as  I understand  it,  is  to  embody  in  a treaty 
a broad  statement  of  principle,  to  proclaim  without  restriction  or 
qualification  that  war  shall  not  be  used  as  an  instrument  of  policy. 
With  this  aim  His  Majesty’s  Government  are  wholly  in  accord.  The 
French  proposals,  equally  imbued  with  the  same  purpose,  have 
merely  added  an  indication  of  certain  exceptional  circumstances 
in  which  the  violation  of  that  principle  by  one  party  may  oblige 
the  others  to  take  action  seeming  at  first  sight  to  be  inconsistent 
with  the  terms  of  the  proposed  pact.  His  Majesty’s  Government 
appreciate  the  scruples  which  have  prompted  these  suggestions  by 
the  French  Government.  The  exact  fulfilment  of  treaty  engage- 
ments is  a matter  which  affects  the  national  honour;  precision  as  to 
the  scope  of  such  engagements  is,  therefore,  of  importance.  Each 
of  the  suggestions  made  by  the  French  Government  has  been  carefully 
considered  from  this  point  of  view. 

4.  After  studying  the  wording  of  Article  1 of  the  United  States 
draft,  His  Majesty’s  Government  do  not  think  that  its  terms  exclude 
action  which  a state  may  be  forced  to  take  in  self-defence.  Mr. 
Kellogg  has  made  it  clear  in  the  speech  to  which  I have  referred  above 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  27 

that  he  regards  the  right  of  self-defence  as  inalienable,  and  His 
Majesty’s  Government  are  disposed  to  think  that  on  this  question 
no  addition  to  the  text  is  necessary. 

5.  As  regards  the  text  of  Article  2 no  appreciable  difference  is 
found  between  the  American  and  French  proposals.  His  Majesty’s 
Government  are,  therefore,  content  to  accept  the  former  if,  as  they 
understand  to  be  the  case,  a dispute  “among  the  high  contracting 
parties”  is  a phrase  wide  enough  to  cover  a dispute  between  any 
two  of  them. 

6.  The  French  note  suggests  the  addition  of  an  article  providing 
that  violation  of  the  treaty  by  one  of  the  parties  should  release  the 
remainder  from  their  obligations  under  the  treaty  towards  that 
party.  His  Majesty’s  Government  are  not  satisfied  that,  if  the 
treaty  stood  alone,  the  addition  of  some  such  provision  would  not  be 
necessary.  Mr.  Kellogg’s  speech,  however,  shows  that  he  put  for- 
ward for  acceptance  the  text  of  the  proposed  treaty  upon  the  under- 
standing that  violation  of  the  undertaking  by  one  party  would  free 
the  remaining  parties  from  the  obligation  to  observe  its  terms  in 
respect  of  the  treaty-breaking  state. 

7.  If  it  is  agreed  that  this  is  the  principle  which  will  apply  in  the 
case  of  this  particular  treaty,  His  Majesty’s  Government  are  satis- 
fied and  will  not  ask  for  the  insertion  of  any  amendment.  Means 
can  no  doubt  be  found  without  difficulty  of  placing  this  understand- 
ing on  record  in  some  appropriate  manner  so  that  it  may  have  equal 
value  with  the  terms  of  the  treaty  itself. 

8.  The  point  is  one  of  importance  because  of  its  bearing  on  the 
treaty  engagements  by  which  His  Majesty’s  Government  are  already 
bound.  The  preservation  of  peace  has  been  the  chief  concern  of  His 
Majesty’s  Government  and  the  prime  object  of  all  their  endeavours. 
It  is  the  reason  why  they  have  given  ungrudging  support  to  the 
League  of  Nations  and  why  they  have  undertaken  the  burden  of  the 
guarantee  embodied  in  the  Locarno  treaty.  The  sole  object  of  all 
these  engagements  is  the  elimination  of  war  as  an  instrument  of 
national  policy,  just  as  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  peace  pact  now  pro- 
posed. It  is  because  the  object  of  both  is  the  same  that  there  is  no 
real  antagonism  between  the  treaty  engagements  which  His  Majesty’s 
Government  have  already  accepted  and  the  pact  which  is  now  pro- 
posed. The  machinery  of  the  covenant  and  of  the  treaty  of  Locarno, 
however,  go  somewhat  further  than  a renunciation  of  war  as  a policy, 
in  that  they  provide  certain  sanctions  for  a breach  of  their  obliga- 
tions. A clash  might  thus  conceivably  arise  between  the  existing 
treaties  and  the  proposed  pact  unless  it  is  understood  that  the 
obligations  of  the  new  engagement  will  cease  to  operate  in  respect  of 
a party  which  breaks  its  pledges  and  adopts  hostile  measures  against 
one  of  its  co-contractants. 


28 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCLVTION  OF  WAR 


9.  For  the  Government  of  this  country  respect  for  the  obligations 
arising  out  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  out  of  the 
Locarno  treaties  is  fundamental.  Our  position  in  this  regard  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  German  Government  as  indicated  in  their 
note  of  the  27th  April.  His  Majesty’s  Government  could  not  agree 
to  any  new  treaty  which  would  weaken  or  undermine  these  engage- 
ments on  which  the  peace  of  Europe  rests.  Indeed,  public  interest 
in  this  country  in  the  scrupulous  fulfilment  of  these  engagements  is 
so  great  that  His  Majesty’s  Government  would  for  their  part  prefer 
to  see  some  such  provision  as  Article  4 of  the  French  draft  embodied 
in  the  text  of  the  treaty.  To  this  we  understand  there  will  be  no 
objection.  Mr.  Kellogg  has  made  it  clear  in  the  speech  to  which  I 
have  drawn  attention  that  he  had  no  intention  by  the  terms  of  the 
new  treaty  of  preventing  the  parties  to  the  Covenant  of  the  League 
or  to  the  Locarno  treaty  from  fulfilling  their  obligations. 

10.  The  language  of  Article  1,  as  to  the  renunciation  of  war  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy,  renders  it  desirable  that  I should 
remind  your  excellency  that  there  are  certain  regions  of  the  world 
the  welfare  and  integrity  of  which  constitute  a special  and  vital 
interest  for  our  peace  and  safety.  His  Majesty’s  Government  have 
been  at  pains  to  make  it  clear  in  the  past  that  interference  with  these 
regions  cannot  be  suffered.  Their  protection  against  attack  is  to 
the  British  Empire  a measure  of  self-defence.  It  must  be  clearly 
understood  that  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain  accept 
the  new  treaty  upon  the  distinct  understanding  that  it  does  not 
prejudice  their  freedom  of  action  in  this  respect.  The  Government 
of  the  United  States  have  comparable  interests  any  disregard  of  which 
by  a foreign  power  they  have  declared  that  they  would  regard  as  an 
unfriendly  act.  His  Majesty’s  Government  believe,  therefore,  that 
in  defining  their  position  they  are  expressing  the  intention  and 
meaning  of  the  United  States  Government. 

11.  As  regards  the  measure  of  participation  in  the  new  treaty 
before  it  would  come  into  force,  His  Majesty’s  Government  agree 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  wait  until  all  the  nations  of  the  world 
have  signified  their  willingness  to  become  parties.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  would  be  embarrassing  if  certain  states  in  Europe  with  whom 
the  proposed  participants  are  already  in  close  treaty  relations  were 
not  included  among  the  parties.  His  Majesty’s  Government  see  no 
reason,  however,  to  doubt  that  these  states  will  gladly  accept  its 
terms.  Universality  would,  in  any  case,  be  difficult  of  attainment, 
and  might  even  be  inconvenient,  for  there  are  some  states  whose 
governments  have  not  yet  been  universally  recognized,  and  some 
which  are  scarcely  in  a position  to  ensure  the  maintenance  of  good 
order  and  security  within  their  territories.  The  conditions  for  the 
inclusion  of  such  states  among  the  parties  to  the  new  treaty  is  a 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  29 

question  to  which  further  attention  may  perhaps  be  devoted  with 
advantage.  It  is,  however,  a minor  question  as  compared  with  the 
attainment  of  the  more  important  purpose  in  view. 

12.  After  this  examination  of  the  terms  of  the  proposed  treaty 
and  of  the  points  to  which  it  gives  rise,  your  excellency  will  realise 
that  His  Majesty’s  Government  find  nothing  in  their  existing  com- 
mitments which  prevents  their  hearty  cooperation  in  this  movement 
for  strengthening  the  foundations  of  peace.  They  will  gladly 
cooperate  in  the  conclusion  of  such  a pact  as  is  proposed  and  are 
ready  to  engage  with  the  interested  Governments  in  the  negotiations 
which  are  necessary  for  the  purpose. 

13.  Your  excellency  will  observe  that  the  detailed  arguments  in 
the  foregoing  paragraphs  are  expressed  on  behalf  of  His  Majesty’s 
Government  in  Great  Britain.  It  will,  however,  be  appreciated  that 
the  proposed  treaty,  from  its  very  nature,  is  not  one  which  concerns 
His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain  alone,  but  is  one  in 
which  they  could  not  undertake  to  participate  otherwise  than  jointly 
and  simultaneously  with  His  Majesty’s  Governments  in  the  Domin- 
ions and  the  Government  of  India.  They  have,  therefore,  been  in 
communication  with  those  Governments,  and  I am  happy  to  be  able 
to  inform  your  excellency  that  as  a result  of  the  communications 
which  have  passed  it  has  been  ascertained  that  they  are  all  in  cordial 
agreement  with  the  general  principle  of  the  proposed  treaty.  I feel 
confident,  therefore,  that  on  receipt  of  an  invitation  to  participate 
in  the  conclusion  of  such  a treaty,  they,  no  less  than  His  Majesty’s 
Government  in  Great  Britain,  will  be  prepared  to  accept  the  invitation. 

I have  [etc.] 

Austen  Chamberlain 


The  Minister  in  Canada  ( Phillips ) to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  External 
Affairs  ( Mackenzie  King)1 

Ottawa,  May  22,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  he  addressed  to  the  American  Ambassador  at 
London  on  May  19,  1928,  Sir  Austen  Chamberlain  was  good  enough 
to  inform  my  Government  that  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great 
Britain  had  been  in  communication  with  his  Majesty’s  Governments 
in  the  Dominions  and  with  the  Government  of  India,  and  had 
ascertained  that  they  were  all  in  cordial  agreement  with  the  general 
principle  of  the  multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  which 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  proposed  on  April  13,  1928. 

1 A similar  note  was  addressed  by  the  Minister  in  the  Irish  Free  State  to  the 
Minister  for  External  Affairs,  and  by  the  Ambassador  in  Great  Britain  to  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  for  transmission  to  Australia,  New  Zealand, 
South  Africa,  and  India. 

12387—28 5 


30 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


Sir  Austen  added  that  he  felt  confident,  therefore,  that  His  Majesty’s 
Governments  in  the  Dominions  and  the  Government  of  India  were 
prepared  to  accept  an  invitation  to  participate  in  the  conclusion  of 
such  a treaty  as  that  proposed  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. 

I have  been  instructed  to  state  to  your  excellency  that  my  Gov- 
ernment has  received  this  information  with  the  keenest  satisfaction. 
My  Government  has  hoped  from  the  outset  of  the  present  negotiations 
that  the  Governments  of  the  Dominions  and  the  Government  of 
India  would  feel  disposed  to  become  parties  to  the  suggested  antiwar 
treaty.  It  is,  moreover,  most  gratifying  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  learn  that  His  Majesty’s  Governments  in  the 
Dominions  and  the  Government  of  India  are  so  favorably  inclined 
towards  the  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  which  my  Government 
proposed  on  April  13,  1928,  as  to  wish  to  participate  therein  indi- 
vidually and  as  original  signatories,  and  my  Government,  for  its 
part,  is  most  happy  to  accede  to  the  suggestion  contained  in  Sir 
Austen  Chamberlain’s  note  of  May  19,  1928,  to  the  American 
Ambassador  at  London. 

Accordingly  I have  been  instructed  to  extend  to  His  Majesty’s 
Government  in  Canada,  in  the  name  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  a cordial  invitation  to  become  one  of  the  original  parties  to 
the  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  which  is  now  under  considera- 
tion. Pursuant  to  my  instructions  I also  have  the  honor  to  inform 
you  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  address  to  His 
Majesty’s  Government  in  Canada,  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same 
manner  as  to  the  other  governments  whose  participation  in  the  pro- 
posed treaty  in  the  first  instance  is  contemplated,  any  further  com- 
munications which  it  may  make  on  the  subject  of  the  treaty  after 
it  has  been  acquainted  with  the  views  of  all  the  governments  to  which 
its  note  of  April  13,  1928,  was  addressed. 

I avail  [etc.]  William  Phillips 

The  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Tanaka ) to  the  American 
Ambassador  ( MacVeagh ) 

[Translation] 

Tokyo,  May  26,  1928. 

Mr.  Ambassador:  I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  excellency’s  note  No.  336  of  April  13  last,  transmitting  to  me, 
under  instructions  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  the 
preliminary  draft  of  a proposed  multilateral  treaty  representing  in  a 
general  way  a form  of  treaty  which  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  prepared  to  sign  with  the  French,  British,  German,  Italian, 
and  Japanese  Governments  and  any  other  governments  similarly  dis- 
posed, with  the  object  of  securing  the  renunciation  of  war.  At  the 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  31 

same  time  3Tour  excellency  enclosed  a copy  of  the  correspondence 
recently  exchanged  between  the  Governments  of  the  United  States 
and  the  French  Republic  commencing  with  a proposal  put  forward 
by  Monsieur  Briand  in  June  1927 ; and  you  intimated  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  desired  to  be  informed  whether 
the  Japanese  Government  were  in  a position  to  give  favorable  con- 
sideration to  the  conclusion  of  such  a treaty  as  that  of  which  you 
enclosed  a draft — and  if  not,  what  specific  modifications  in  the  text 
would  make  it  acceptable. 

I beg  to  inform  your  excellency  that  the  Government  of  Japan 
sympathize  warmly  with  the  high  and  beneficent  aims  of  the  proposal 
now  made  by  the  United  States,  which  they  take  to  imply  the  entire 
abolition  of  the  institution  of  war,  and  that  they  will  be  glad  to  render 
their  most  cordial  cooperation  towards  the  attainment  of  that  end. 

The  proposal  of  the  United  States  is  understood  to  contain  nothing 
that  would  refuse  to  independent  states  the  right  of  self-defense,  and 
nothing  which  is  incompatible  with  the  obligations  of  agreements 
guaranteeing  the  public  peace,  such  as  are  embodied  in  the  Covenant 
of  the  League  of  Nations  and  the  treaties  of  Locarno.  Accordingly, 
the  Imperial  Government  firmly  believe  that  unanimous  agreement 
on  a mutually  acceptable  text  for  such  a treaty  as  is  contemplated  is 
well  capable  of  realization  by  discussion  between  the  six  powers  re- 
ferred to,  and  they  would  be  happy  to  collaborate  with  cordial  good 
will  in  the  discussions  with  the  purpose  of  securing  what  they  are  per- 
suaded is  the  common  desire  of  all  the  peoples  of  the  world — namely, 
the  cessation  of  wars  and  the  definite  establishment  among  the  nations 
of  an  era  of  permanent  and  universal  peace. 

I avail  [etc.] 

Baron  Giichi  Tanaka 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  New  Zealand , to  the  American  Charge 
(. Atherton ) 

London,  May  SO,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  Mr.  Houghton  was  so  good  as  to  address 
to  me  on  May  22d  he  extended  on  behalf  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  an  invitation  to  His  Majesty’s  Governments  in  the 
Commonwealth  of  Australia,  New  Zealand  and  in  the  Union  of 
South  Africa,  as  well  as  to  the  Government  of  India,  to  participate 
individually  and  as  original  signatories  in  the  treaty  for  the  renuncia- 
tion of  war  which  is  now  under  consideration. 

2.  I now  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  His  Majesty’s  Govern- 
ment in  New  Zealand  have  received  with  warm  appreciation  the 
invitation  addressed  to  New  Zealand  to  become  an  original  party  to 
the  treaty  proposed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  the 


32 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OP  WAR 


renunciation  of  war.  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  New  Zealand 
welcome  the  opportunity,  in  cooperation  with  His  Majesty’s  Govern- 
ments in  other  parts  of  the  British  Empire,  of  associating  themselves 
with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  this  movement  to  add 
greater  security  to  the  peace  of  the  world  and  they  will  be  happy  to 
share  in  any  negotiations  leading  to  the  conclusion  of  the  proposed 
treaty. 

I have  [etc.] 

(For  the  Secretary  of  State) 

R.  L.  Craigie 


The  Irish  Free  State  Minister  for  External  Affairs  ( McGilligan ) to  the 
American  Minister  ( Sterling ) 

Dublin,  May  30,  1928. 

Excellency:  I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your 
excellency’s  note  of  22d  May  referring  to  the  draft  treaty  for  the 
renunciation  of  war  and  extending  an  invitation  from  your  Govern- 
ment to  the  Government  of  the  Irish  Free  State  to  become  one  of  the 
original  parties  to  the  proposed  treaty. 

The  Government  of  the  Irish  Free  State  warmly  welcome  the  action 
of  the  United  States  Government  in  initiating  this  further  advance 
towards  the  maintenance  of  general  peace.  They  are  in  cordial 
agreement  with  the  general  principle  of  the  draft  treaty  which  they 
confidently  hope  will  ensure  the  peaceful  settlement  of  future  inter- 
national disputes. 

Sharing  the  view  expressed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States  in  his  speech  before  the  American  Society  of  International 
Law  that  nothing  in  the  draft  treaty  is  inconsistent  wuth  the  Covenant 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  the  Government  of  the  Irish  Free  State 
accept  unreservedly  the  invitation  of  the  United  States  Government 
to  become  a party  to  the  treaty  jointly  with  the  other  states  similarly 
invited. 

The  Government  of  the  Irish  Free  State  will  be  glad  therefore  to 
participate  in,  and  to  further  by  every  possible  means,  the  negotia- 
tions which  may  be  necessary  for  the  conclusion  of  the  pact. 

Accept  [etc.] 

P.  McGilligan 


The  Canadian  Secretary  of  State  for  External  A fairs  ( Mackenzie  King ) 
to  the  American  Minister  ( Phillips ) 

Ottawa,  May  30,  1928. 

Sir:  I have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  your  note  of  May  22d, 
extending  to  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Canada,  in  the  name  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  an  invitation  to  become  one 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  33 

of  the  original  parties  to  the  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  now 
under  consideration. 

The  Government  of  Canada  is  certain  that  it  speaks  for  the  whole 
Canadian  people  in  welcoming  the  outcome,  in  the  proposed  multi- 
lateral pact,  of  the  discussion  initiated  almost  a year  ago  between 
the  Governments  of  France  and  of  the  United  States.  It  is  pleased 
to  find  that  in  this  attitude  it  is  in  accord  with  all  His  Majesty’s  other 
governments.  The  proposals  of  the  United  States  Government,  by 
their  directness  and  simplicity,  afford  to  the  peoples  of  the  world  a 
new  and  notable  opportunity  of  ensuring  lasting  peace. 

The  Dominion  of  Canada,  fortunate  in  its  ties  of  kinship  and  alle- 
giance as  well  as  in  its  historic  and  neighbourly  friendships,  and  with 
half  a continent  as  its  heritage,  is  less  exposed  to  the  danger  of  attack 
or  the  temptation  to  aggression  than  many  other  lands.  Yet  the 
Great  War,  with  its  burdens  of  suffering  and  of  loss,  brought  home 
the  danger  which  all  countries  share,  and  led  Canada  to  turn  with 
hope  to  the  efforts  to  build  up  effective  barriers  against  war  which 
took  shape  in  the  League  of  Nations;  it  will  welcome  the  present 
proposals  as  a manifestation  of  the  same  striving  for  peace. 

The  question  whether  the  obligations  of  the  Covenant  of  the 
League  would  conflict  in  any  way  with  the  obligations  of  the  proposed 
pact  has  been  given  careful  consideration.  His  Majesty’s  Govern- 
ment in  Canada  regards  the  League,  with  all  its  limitations,  as  an 
indispensable  and  continuing  agency  of  international  understanding, 
and  would  not  desire  to  enter  upon  any  course  which  would  prejudice 
its  effectiveness.  It  is,  however,  convinced  that  there  is  no  conflict 
either  in  the  letter  or  in  the  spirit  between  the  Covenant  and  the 
multilateral  pact,  or  between  the  obligations  assumed  under  each. 

The  pre-eminent  value  of  the  League  lies  in  its  positive  and  pre- 
ventive action.  In  bringing  together  periodically  the  representatives 
of  fifty  states,  it  builds  up  barriers  against  war  by  developing  a spirit 
of  conciliation,  an  acceptance  of  publicity  in  international  affairs,  a 
habit  of  cooperation  in  common  ends,  and  a permanently  available 
machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  differences.  It  is  true  that  the 
Covenant  also  contemplates  the  application  of  sanctions  in  the  event 
of  a member  state  going  to  war,  if  in  so  doing  it  has  broken  the 
pledges  of  the  Covenant  to  seek  a peaceful  solution  of  disputes. 
Canada  has  always  opposed  any  interpretation  of  the  Covenant 
which  would  involve  the  application  of  these  sanctions  automatically 
or  by  the  decision  of  other  states.  It  was  on  the  initiative  of  Canada 
that  the  Fourth  Assembly,  with  a single  negative  vote,  accepted  the 
interpretative  resolution  to  which  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States  recently  referred,  indicating  that  it  is  for  the  constitu- 
tional authorities  of  each  state  to  determine  in  what  degree  it  is 
bound  to  assure  the  execution  of  the  obligations  of  this  article  by 


34 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


employment  of  its  military  forces.  The  question  of  sanctions  has 
received  further  consideration  by  later  Assemblies.  It  is  plain  that 
the  full  realization  of  the  ideal  of  joint  economic  or  military  pressure 
upon  an  outlaw  power,  upon  which  some  of  the  founders  of  the 
League  set  great  store,  will  require  either  an  approach  to  the  univer- 
sality of  the  League  contemplated  when  the  Covenant  was  being 
drawn,  or  an  adjustment  of  the  old  rules  of  neutrality  to  meet  the 
new  conditions  of  cooperative  defence. 

In  any  event,  if,  as  would  seem  to  be  the  case,  the  proposed  multi- 
lateral treat}7  does  not  impose  any  obligation  upon  a signatory  in 
relation  to  a state  which  has  not  signed  the  treaty  or  has  broken  it, 
any  decision  taken  to  apply  sanctions  against  a member  of  the 
League  which  has  made  war  in  violation  of  its  Covenant  pledges 
would  not  appear  to  conflict  with  the  obligations  of  the  treaty. 

His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Canada  will  have  pleasure  in 
cooperating  in  any  future  negotiations  with  a view  to  becoming  a 
signatory  to  a treaty  such  as  is  proposed  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  in  the  invitation  which  it  has  extended,  and  to  recom- 
mending its  acceptance  to  the  Canadian  Parliament. 

Accept  [etc.] 

W.  L.  Mackenzie  King 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ),  on 
behalf  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  to  the  American  Charge 
{Atherton) 

London,  June  2,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  Mr.  Houghton  was  so  good  as  to  address 
to  me  on  May  22d  last,  he  extended  on  behalf  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  an  invitation  to  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the 
Commonwealth  of  Australia  to  participate  individually  and  as  an 
original  signatory  in  the  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  which  is 
now  under  consideration. 

2.  I now  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  His  Majesty’s  Gov- 
ernment in  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia  have  received  with  appre- 
ciation the  invitation  to  participate  as  an  original  party  in  the  treaty 
for  the  renunciation  of  war  which  has  been  proposed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  America.  His  Majesty’s  Government 
in  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia  have  carefully  and  sympathetically 
examined  the  draft  treaty  submitted  to  them  together  with  the  cor- 
respondence that  has  so  far  been  exchanged  between  the  interested 
governments.  They  believe  that  a treaty  such  as  that  proposed 
would  be  a further  material  safeguard  to  the  peace  of  the  world  and 
they  will  be  happy  to  cooperate  to  the  fullest  extent  in  its  successful 
conclusion. 

I have  [etc.] 

(For  the  Secretary  of  State) 

R.  L.  Craigie 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  35 

The  British  Secretary  oj  State  f or  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  India,  to  the  American  Charge  ( Atherton ) 

London,  June  11,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  Mr.  Houghton  was  so  good  as  to  address 
to  me  on  the  22d  ultimo,  he  extended  on  behalf  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  an  invitation  to  the  Government  of  India  to 
participate  individually  and  as  an  original  signatory  in  the  treaty 
for  the  renunciation  of  war  which  is  now  under  consideration. 

2.  I now  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  the  Government  of 
India  have  requested  that  an  expression  of  their  warm  thanks  may  be 
conveyed  to  the  United  States  Government  for  this  invitation  which 
they  are  happy  to  accept.  I have  the  honour  to  add  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  India  desire  to  associate  themselves  with  the  note  which  I 
had  the  honour  to  address  to  Mr.  Houghton  on  the  19th  ultimo. 

I have  [etc.] 

(For  the  Secretary  of  State) 

R.  L.  Craigie 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Chamberlain) , on 

behalf  of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  to  the  American  Charge 

(Atherton) 

London,  June  15,  1928. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  the  note  which  Mr.  Houghton  was  so  good 
as  to  address  to  me  on  the  22d  May  conveying  an  invitation  to  His 
Majesty’s  Government  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  to  become  an 
original  party  to  the  proposed  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war,  I 
have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  the  following  message  has  been 
received  by  telegraph  from  General  Hertzog,  Minister  of  External 
Affairs  of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  for  communication  to  you: 

Through  the  good  offices  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  United  Kingdom 
the  contents  of  the  note  addressed  by  your  excellency  to  his  excellency  the 
British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  on  the  22d  May  were  duly  con- 
veyed to  me.  On  behalf  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  Union  of  South 
Africa  I beg  to  state  that  the  cordial  invitation  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  extended  to  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  to 
participate  individually  and  as  an  original  signatory  in  the  treaty  for  the  renun- 
ciation of  war  which  the  United  States  Government  proposed  to  various  govern- 
ments on  the  13th  April  last,  is  highly  appreciated,  and  that  His  Majesty’s 
Government  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  will  gladly  take  part  therein,  as  invited, 
together  with  the  other  governments  whose  participation  in  the  proposed  treaty 
was  invited  in  the  first  instance. 

In  expressing  their  willingness  to  be  a party  to  the  proposed  treaty  His  Maj- 
esty’s Government  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  take  it  for  granted — 

(а)  That  it  is  not  intended  to  deprive  any  party  to  the  proposed  treaty  of  any 

of  its  natural  right  of  legitimate  self-defence; 

(б)  That  a violation  of  any  one  of  the  parties  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  the 

proposed  treaty  will  free  the  other  parties  from  obligation  to  observe 
its  terms  in  respect  of  the  party  committing  such  violation;  and 


36 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  EENUN CIATION  OF  WAR 


(c)  That  provision  will  be  made  for  rendering  it  quite  clear  that  it  is  not 
intended  that  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  by  becoming  a party  to  the 
proposed  treaty  would  be  precluded  from  fulfilling  as  a member  of  the 
League  of  Nations  its  obligations  towards  the  other  members  thereof 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League. 

I have  [etc.] 

(For  the  Secretary  of  State) 

It.  L.  Craigie 


Note  of  the  Government  oj  the  United  States  to  the  Governments  of 
Australia,  Belgium,  Canada,  Czechoslovakia,  France,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  India,  Irish  Free  State,  Italy,  Japan,  New  Zealand,  Poland, 
and  South  Africa,  June  23,  1928 

It  will  be  recalled  that,  pursuant  to  the  understanding  reached 
between  the  Government  of  France  and  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  the  American  Ambassadors  at  London,  Berlin,  Rome 
and  Tokyo  transmitted  on  April  13,  1928,  to  the  Governments  to 
which  they  were  respectively  accredited  the  text  of  M.  Briand’s 
original  proposal  of  June  20,  1927,  together  with  copies  of  the  notes 
subsequently  exchanged  by  France  and  the  United  States  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war.  At  the  same 
time  the  Government  of  the  United  States  also  submitted  for  con- 
sideration a preliminary  draft  of  a treaty  representing  in  a general 
way  the  form  of  treaty  which  it  was  prepared  to  sign,  and  inquired 
whether  the  Governments  thus  addressed  were  in  a position  to  give 
favorable  consideration  thereto.  The  text  of  the  identic  notes  of  April 
13,  1928,  and  a copy  of  the  draft  treaty  transmitted  therewith,  were 
also  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Government  of  France  by  the 
American  Ambassador  at  Paris. 

It  will  likewise  be  recalled  that  on  April  20,  1928,  the  Government 
of  the  French  Republic  circulated  among  the  other  interested  govern- 
ments, including  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  an  alterna- 
tive draft  treaty,  and  that  in  an  address  which  he  delivered  on  April 
28,  1928,  before  the  American  Society  of  International  Law,  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  explained  fully  the  construc- 
tion placed  by  my  Government  upon  the  treaty  proposed  by  it,  refer- 
ring as  follows  to  the  six  major  considerations  emphasized  by  France 
in  its  alternative  draft  treaty  and  prior  diplomatic  correspondence 
with  my  Government  : 

( 1 ) Self-defense.  There  is  nothing  in  the  American  draft  of  an  antiwar  treaty 
which  restricts  or  impairs  in  any  way  the  right  of  self-defense.  That  right  is 
inherent  in  every  sovereign  state  and  is  implicit  in  every  treaty.  Every  nation  is 
free  at  all  times  and  regardless  of  treaty  provisions  to  defend  its  territory  from 
attack  or  invasion  and  it  alone  is  competent  to  decide  whether  circumstances 
require  recourse  to  war  in  self-defense.  If  it  has  a good  case,  the  world  will  ap- 
plaud and  not  condemn  its  action.  Express  recognition  by  treaty  of  this  inalien- 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  37 


able  right,  however,  gives  rise  to  the  same  difficulty  encountered  in  any  eftort  to 
define  aggression.  It  is  the  identical  question  approached  from  the  other  side. 
Inasmuch  as  no  treaty  provision  can  add  to  the  natural  right  of  self-defense,  it  is 
not  in  the  interest  of  peace  that  a treaty  should  stipulate  a juristic  conception  of 
self-defense  since  it  is  far  too  easy  for  the  unscrupulous  to  mold  events  to  accord 
with  an  agreed  definition. 

(2)  The  League  Covenant.  The  Covenant  imposes  no  affirmative  primary 
obligation  to  go  to  wrar.  The  obligation,  if  any,  is  secondary  and  attaches  only 
when  deliberately  accepted  by  a state.  Article  10  of  the  Covenant  has,  for 
example,  been  interpreted  by  a resolution  submitted  to  the  Fourth  Assembly 
but  not  formally  adopted  owing  to  one  adverse  vote  to  mean  that  “it  is  for  the 
constitutional  authorities  of  each  member  to  decide,  in  reference  to  the  obligation 
of  preserving  the  independence  and  the  integrity  of  the  territory  of  members, 
in  what  degree  the  member  is  bound  to  assure  the  execution  of  this  obligation 
by  employment  of  its  military  forces.”  There  is,  in  my  opinion,  no  necessary 
inconsistency  between  the  Covenant  and  the  idea  of  an  unqualified  renuncia- 
tion of  war.  The  Covenant  can,  it  is  true,  be  construed  as  authorizing  war  in 
certain  circumstances  but  it  is  an  authorization  and  not  a positive  requirement. 

(S)  The  treaties  of  Locarno.  If  the  parties  to  the  treaties  of  Locarno  are  under 
any  positive  obligation  to  go  to  war,  such  obligation  certainly  would  not  attach 
until  one  of  the  parties  has  resorted  to  war  in  violation  of  its  solemn  pledges 
thereunder.  It  is  therefore  obvious  that  if  all  the  parties  to  the  Locarno  treaties 
become  parties  to  the  multilateral  antiwar  treaty  proposed  by  the  United  States, 
there  would  be  a double  assurance  that  the  Locarno  treaties  would  not  be  vio- 
lated by  recourse  to  arms.  In  such  event  it  would  follow  that  resort  to  war  by 
any  state  in  violation  of  the  Locarno  treaties  would  also  be  a breach  of  the  mul- 
tilateral antiwar  treaty  and  the  other  parties  to  the  antiwar  treaty  would  thus 
as  a matter  of  law  be  automatically  released  from  their  obligations  thereunder 
and  free  to  fulfil  their  Locarno  commitments.  The  United  States  is  entirely 
willing  that  all  parties  to  the  Locarno  treaties  should  become  parties  to  its  pro- 
posed antiwar  treaty  either  through  signature  in  the  first  instance  or  by  imme- 
diate accession  to  the  treaty  as  soon  as  it  comes  into  force  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided in  Article  3 of  the  American  draft,  and  it  will  offer  no  objection  when 
and  if  such  a suggestion  is  made. 

(4)  Treaties  of  neutrality.  The  United  States  is  not  informed  as  to  the  precise 
treaties  which  France  has  in  mind  and  cannot  therefore  discuss  their  provisions. 
It  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose,  however,  that  the  relations  between  France 
and  the  states  whose  neutrality  she  has  guaranteed  are  sufficiently  close  and 
intimate  to  make  it  possible  for  France  to  persuade  such  states  to  adhere  season- 
ably to  the  antiwar  treaty  proposed  by  the  United  States.  If  this  were  done  no 
party  to  the  antiwar  treaty  could  attack  the  neutralized  states  without  violating 
the  treaty  and  thereby  automatically  freeing  France  and  the  other  powers  in 
respect  of  the  treaty-breaking  state  from  the  obligations  of  the  antiwar  treaty. 
If  the  neutralized  states  were  attacked  by  a state  not  a party  to  the  antiwar 
treaty,  the  latter  treaty  would  of  course  have  no  bearing  and  France  would  be  as 
free  to  act  under  the  treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality  as  if  she  were  not  a party 
to  the  antiwar  treaty.  It  is  difficult  to  perceive,  therefore,  how  treaties  guaran- 
teeing neutrality  can  be  regarded  as  necessarily  preventing  the  conclusion  by 
France  or  any  other  power  of  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war. 

(i 5 ) Relations  with  a treaty-breaking  state.  As  I have  already  pointed  out,  there 
can  be  no  question  as  a matter  of  law  that  violation  of  a multilateral  antiwar 
treaty  through  resort  to  war  by  one  party  thereto  would  automatically  release 
the  other  parties  from  their  obligations  to  the  treaty-breaking  state.  Any  ex- 
press'recognition  of  this  principle  of  law  is  wholly  unnecessary. 


38 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


(' 6 ) Universality.  From  the  beginning  it  has  been  the  hope  of  the  United 
States  that  its  proposed  multilateral  antiwar  treaty  should  be  world-wide  in  its 
application,  and  appropriate  provision  therefor  was  made  in  the  draft  submitted 
to  the  other  governments  on  April  13.  From  a practical  standpoint  it  is  clearly 
preferable,  however,  not  to  postpone  the  coming  into  force  of  an  antiwar  treaty 
until  all  the  nations  of  the  world  can  agree  upon  the  text  of  such  a treaty  and 
cause  it  to  be  ratified.  For  one  reason  or  another  a state  so  situated  as  to  be  no 
menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world  might  obstruct  agreement  or  delay  ratification 
in  such  manner  as  to  render  abortive  the  efforts  of  all  the  other  powers.  It  is 
highly  improbable,  moreover,  that  a form  of  treaty  acceptable  to  the  British, 
French,  German,  Italian  and  Japanese  Governments,  as  well  as  to  the  United 
States,  would  not  be  equally  acceptable  to  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  other  powers 
of  the  world.  Even  were  this  not  the  case,  however,  the  coming  into  force  among 
the  above-named  six  powers  of  an  effective  antiwar  treaty  and  their  observance 
thereof  would  be  a practical  guaranty  against  a second  world  war.  This  in  itself 
would  be  a tremendous  service  to  humanity  and  the  United  States  is  not  willing 
to  jeopardize  the  practical  success  of  the  proposal  which  it  has  made  by  condi- 
tioning the  coming  into  force  of  the  treaty  upon  prior  universal  or  almost  uni- 
versal acceptance. 

The  British,  German,  Italian  and  Japanese  Governments  have  now 
replied  to  my  Government’s  notes  of  April  13,  1928,  and  the  Gov- 
ernments of  the  British  Dominions  and  of  India  have  likewise  replied 
to  the  invitations  addressed  to  them  on  May  22,  1928,  by  my  Govern- 
ment pursuant  to  the  suggestion  conveyed  in  the  note  of  May  19, 
1928,  from  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain.  None  of 
these  Governments  has  expressed  any  dissent  from  the  above- 
quoted  construction,  and  none  has  voiced  the  least  disapproval  of 
the  principle  underlying  the  proposal  of  the  United  States  for  the 
promotion  of  world  peace.  Neither  has  any  of  the  replies  received 
by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  suggested  any  specific 
modification  of  the  text  of  the  draft  treaty  proposed  by  it  on  April 
13,  1928,  and  my  Government,  for  its  part,  remains  convinced  that 
no  modification  of  the  text  of  its  proposal  for  a multilateral  treaty 
for  the  renunciation  of  war  is  necessary  to  safeguard  the  legitimate 
interests  of  any  nation.  It  believes  that  the  right  of  self-defense  is 
inherent  in  every  sovereign  state  and  implicit  in  every  treaty.  No 
specific  reference  to  that  inalienable  attribute  of  sovereignty  is  there- 
fore necessary  or  desirable.  It  is  no  less  evident  that  resort  to  war 
in  violation  of  the  proposed  treaty  by  one  of  the  parties  thereto 
would  release  the  other  parties  from  their  obligations  under  the  treaty 
towards  the  belligerent  state.  This  principle  is  well  recognized.  So 
far  as  the  Locarno  treaties  are  concerned,  my  Government  has  felt 
from  the  very  first  that  participation  in  the  antiwar  treaty  by  the 
powers  which  signed  the  Locarno  agreements,  either  through  signa- 
ture in  the  first  instance  or  thereafter,  would  meet  every  practical 
requirement  of  the  situation,  since  in  such  event  no  state  could  resort 
to  war  in  violation  of  the  Locarno  treaties  without  simultaneously 
violating  the  antiwar  treaty,  thus  leaving  the  other  parties  thereto 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  39 

free,  so  far  as  the  treaty-breaking  state  is  concerned.  As  your  excel- 
lency knows,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  welcomed  the 
idea  that  all  parties  to  the  treaties  of  Locarno  should  be  among  the 
original  signatories  of  the  proposed  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of 
war  and  provision  therefor  has  been  made  in  the  draft  treaty  which 
I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith.  The  same  procedure  would 
cover  the  treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality  to  which  the  Government 
of  France  has  referred.  Adherence  to  the  proposed  treaty  by  all 
parties  to  these  other  treaties  would  completely  safeguard  their  rights 
since  subsequent  resort  to  war  by  any  of  them  or  by  any  party  to 
the  antiwar  treaty  would  violate  the  latter  treaty  as  well  as  the 
neutrality  treaty,  and  thus  leave  the  other  parties  to  the  antiwar 
treaty  free,  so  far  as  the  treaty-breaking  state  is  concerned.  My 
Government  would  be  entirely  willing,  however,  to  agree  that  the 
parties  to  such  neutrality  treaties  should  be  original  signatories  of 
the  multilateral  antiwar  treaty,  and  it  has  no  reason  to  believe  that 
such  an  arrangement  would  meet  with  any  objection  on  the  part  of 
the  other  Governments  now  concerned  in  the  present  negotiations. 

While  my  Government  is  satisfied  that  the  draft  treaty  proposed 
by  it  on  April  13,  1928,  could  be  properly  accepted  by  the  powers  of 
the  world  without  change  except  for  including  among  the  original 
signatories  the  British  Dominions,  India,  all  parties  to  the  treaties  of 
Locarno  and,  it  may  be,  all  parties  to  the  neutrality  treaties  mentioned 
by  the  Government  of  France,  it  has  no  desire  to  delay  or  complicate 
the  present  negotiations  by  rigidly  adhering  to  the  precise  phrase- 
ology of  that  draft,  particularly  since  it  appears  that  by  modifying 
the  draft  in  form  though  not  in  substance,  the  points  raised  by  other 
Governments  can  be  satisfactorily  met  and  general  agreement  upon 
the  text  of  the  treaty  to  be  signed  be  promptly  reached.  The  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  has  therefore  decided  to  submit  to 
the  fourteen  other  Governments  now  concerned  in  these  negotiations 
a revised  draft  of  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war. 
The  text  of  this  revised  draft  is  identical  with  that  of  the  draft  pro- 
posed by  the  United  States  on  April  13,  1928,  except  that  the  pre- 
amble now  provides  that  the  British  Dominions,  India,  and  all  parties 
to  the  treaties  of  Locarno  are  to  be  included  among  the  powers  called 
upon  to  sign  the  treaty  in  the  first  instance,  and  except  that  the  first 
three  paragraphs  of  the  preamble  have  been  changed  to  read  as 
follows : 

Deeply  sensible  of  their  solemn  duty  to  promote  the  welfare  of  mankind; 

Persuaded  that  the  time  has  come  when  a frank  renunciation  of  war  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy  should  be  made  to  the  end  that  the  peaceful  and 
friendly  relations  now  existing  between  their  peoples  may  be  perpetuated; 

Convinced  that  all  changes  in  their  relations  with  one  another  should  be  sought 
only  by  pacific  means  and  be  the  result  of  a peaceful  and  orderly  process,  and  that 
any  signatory  power  which  shall  hereafter  seek  to  promote  its  national  interests 
by  resort  to  war  should  be  denied  the  benefits  furnished  by  this  treaty; 


40  GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 

The  revised  preamble  thus  gives  express  recognition  to  the  principle 
that  if  a state  resorts  to  war  in  violation  of  the  treaty,  the  other  con- 
tracting parties  are  released  from  their  obligations  under  the  treaty 
to  that  state;  it  also  provides  for  participation  in  the  treaty  by  all 
parties  to  the  treaties  of  Locarno,  thus  making  it  certain  that  resort 
to  war  in  violation  of  the  Locarno  treaties  would  also  violate  the 
present  treaty  and  release  not  only  the  other  signatories  of  the 
Locarno  treaties  but  also  the  other  signatories  to  the  antiwar  treaty 
from  their  obligations  to  the  treaty-breaking  state.  Moreover,  as 
stated  above,  my  Government  would  be  willing  to  have  included 
among  the  original  signatories  the  parties  to  the  neutrality  treaties 
referred  to  by  the  Government  of  the  French  Republic,  although  it 
believes  that  the  interests  of  those  states  would  be  adequately  safe- 
guarded if,  instead  of  signing  in  the  first  instance,  they  should  choose 
to  adhere  to  the  treaty. 

In  these  circumstances  I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  for 
the  consideration  of  your  excellency’s  Government  a draft  of  a mul- 
tilateral treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  containing  the  changes 
outlined  above.  I have  been  instructed  to  state  in  this  connection 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  ready  to  sign  at  once  a 
treaty  in  the  form  herein  proposed,  and  to  express  the  fervent  hope 

that  the  Government  of will  be  able  promptly  to  indicate 

its  readiness  to  accept,  without  qualification  or  reservation,  the  form 
of  treaty  now  suggested  by  the  United  States.  If  the  Governments 
of  Australia,  Belgium,  Canada,  Czechoslovakia,  France,  Germany, 
Great  Britain,  India,  the  Irish  Free  State,  Italy,  Japan,  New  Zealand, 
Poland,  South  Africa  and  the  United  States  can  now  agree  to  conclude 
this  antiwar  treaty  among  themselves,  my  Government  is  confident 
that  the  other  nations  of  the  world  will,  as  soon  as  the  treaty  comes 
into  force,  gladly  adhere  thereto,  and  that  this  simple  procedure  will 
bring  mankind’s  age-long  aspirations  for  universal  peace  nearer  to 
practical  fulfilment  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

I have  the  honor  to  state  in  conclusion  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  would  be  pleased  to  be  informed  at  as  early  a date  as 
may  be  convenient  whether  your  excellency’s  Government  is  willing 
to  join  with  the  United  States  and  other  similarly  disposed  Govern- 
ments in  signing  a definitive  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  in  the 
form  transmitted  herewith. 

[Enclosure] 

Text  of  draft  treaty 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  President  of  the  French 
Republic,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Belgians,  the  President  of  the  Czecho- 
slovak Republic,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the  British 
Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India,  the  President  of  the  German 
Reich,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy,  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan,  the 
President  of  the  Republic  of  Poland; 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  41 


Deeply  sensible  of  their  solemn  duty  to  promote  the  welfare  of  mankind; 
Persuaded  that  the  time  has  come  when  a frank  renunciation  of  war  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy  should  be  made  to  the  end  that  the  peaceful  and 
friendly  relations  now  existing  between  their  peoples  may  be  perpetuated; 

Convinced  that  all  changes  in  their  relations  with  one  another  should  be 
sought  only  by  pacific  means  and  be  the  result  of  a peaceful  and  orderly  process, 
and  that  any  signatory  power  which  shall  hereafter  seek  to  promote  its  national 
interests  by  resort  to  war  should  be  denied  the  benefits  furnished  by  this  treaty; 

Hopeful  that,  encouraged  by  their  example,  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world 
will  join  in  this  humane  endeavor  and  by  adhering  to  the  present  treaty  as  soon 
as  it  comes  into  force  bring  their  peoples  within  the  scope  of  its  beneficent  pro- 
visions, thus  uniting  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world  in  a common  renunciation 
of  war  as  an  instrument  of  their  national  policy; 

Have  decided  to  conclude  a treaty  and  for  that  purpose  have  appointed  as 
their  respective  plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America: 

The  President  of  the  French  Republic: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Belgians: 

The  President  of  the  Czechoslovak  Republic: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  the  British  Dominions 
beyond  the  Seas,  Emperor  of  India: 

For  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  and  all  parts  of  the  British  Empire 

which  are  not  separate  members  of  the  League  of  Nations: 

For  the  Dominion  of  Canada: 

For  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia: 

For  the  Dominion  of  New  Zealand: 

For  the  Union  of  South  Africa: 

For  the  Irish  Free  State: 

For  India: 

The  President  of  the  German  Reich: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy: 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Japan: 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Poland: 

Who,  having  communicated  to  one  another  their  full  powers  found  in  good  and 
due  form  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  1 

The  high  contracting  parties  solemnly  declare  in  the  names  of  their  respective 
peoples  that  they  condemn  recourse  to  war  for  the  solution  of  international 
controversies,  and  renounce  it  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  relations 
with  one  another. 

Article  2 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  settlement  or  solution  of  all  dis- 
putes or  conflicts  of  whatever  nature  or  of  whatever  origin  they  may  be,  which 
may  arise  among  them,  shall  never  be  sought  except  by  pacific  means. 

Article  3 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  the  high  contracting  parties  named  in 
the  preamble  in  accordance  with  their  respective  constitutional  requirements, 
and  shall  take  effect  as  between  them  as  soon  as  all  their  several  instruments  of 

ratification  shall  have  been  deposited  at 

This  treaty  shall,  when  it  has  come  into  effect  as  prescribed  in  the  preceding 
paragraph,  remain  open  as  long  as  may  be  necessary  for  adherence  by  all  the  other 
powers  of  the  world.  Every  instrument  evidencing  the  adherence  of  a power 


42 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


shall  be  deposited  at and  the  treaty  shall  immediately  upon  such 

deposit  become  effective  as  between  the  power  thus  adhering  and  the  other 
powers  parties  hereto. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  of to  furnish  each  Govern- 

ment named  in  the  preamble  and  every  Government  subsequently  adhering 
to  this  treaty  with  a certified  copy  of  the  treaty  and  of  every  instrument  of 

ratification  or  adherence.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  of 

telegraphically  to  notify  such  Governments  immediately  upon  the  deposit 

with  it  of  each  instrument  of  ratification  or  adherence. 

In  faith  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  this  treaty  in 
the  French  and  English  languages,  both  texts  having  equal  force,  and  hereunto 
affix  their  seals. 

Done  at the day  of in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty 


The  Polish  Vice  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( WysocTci ) to  the  American 

Minister  ( Stetson ) 

[Translation] 

Warsaw,  July  8,  1928 } 

Mr.  Minister:  I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the 
note  No.  1175  of  June  23  last  which  you  were  good  enough  to  send 
me,  to  which  was  attached  the  draft  of  a multilateral  pact  against 
war,  as  proposed  by  his  excellency  Mr.  Kellogg. 

The  principles  which  Mr.  Kellogg  has  emphasized  in  the  draft  above 
mentioned  being  entirely  conformable  with  the  objectives  that  Poland 
never  ceases  pursuing  in  its  foreign  policy,  I have  the  honor  to  com- 
municate to  you  the  fact  that  the  Polish  Government  accepts  the  text 
of  the  above-stated  pact  and  declares  itself  ready  to  affix  its  signature 
thereto. 

As  regards  the  interpretation  of  the  pact  in  question  which  you 
have  been  good  enough  to  give  in  your  note  of  June  23  and  which 
confirms  the  fact  that  the  pact  is  destined  to  insure  the  consolidation 
of  peaceful  relations  between  states  on  the  basis  of  the  existing  inter- 
national obligations,  the  Polish  Government  takes  note  of  the  follow- 
ing statements: 

(1)  That  the  pact  does  not  affect  in  any  way  the  right  of  legitimate 

defense  inherent  in  each  state; 

(2)  That  each  state  signatory  to  the  pact  which  may  endeavor  to 

realize  its  national  interests  by  means  of  war  shall  be  deprived 
of  the  benefits  of  the  said  pact; 

(3)  That  no  incompatibility  exists  between  the  stipulations  of  the 

pact  against  war  and  the  obligations  deriving  from  the 
Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  states  which  are 
members  of  the  latter.  This  statement  results  from  the 
very  fact  that  the  pact  proposed  by  Mr.  Kellogg  stipulates 
the  renunciation  of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy. 


1 Although  dated  July  8,  1928,  the  note  was  not  presented  to  the  American 
Minister  until  July  17. 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  43 

These  precisions  as  well  as  the  opportunity  given  to  all  states  to 
adhere  to  the  pact,  are  of  a nature  to  assure  to  Poland  the  possibility 
of  satisfying  her  international  obligations. 

The  Polish  Government  permits  itself  to  express  the  hope  of  seeing 
the  realization  in  the  near  future  of  this  great  common  work  of  peace 
and  stabilization  destined  to  assure  its  benefits  to  all  mankind. 

Please  accept  [etc.] 

Andrew  Wysocki 


The  German  State  Secretary  {Schubert)  to  the  American  Ambassador 

{Schurman) 

[Translation) 

Berlin,  July  11,  1928. 

Excellency:  I acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  excellency’s  note 
of  June  23,  1928,  regarding  the  conclusion  of  an  international  pact 
for  the  renunciation  of  war,  and  have  the  honor  to  reply  thereto  as 
follows  on  behalf  of  the  German  Government: 

The  German  Government  has  examined  with  the  greatest  care 
the  contents  of  the  note  and  the  revised  draft  of  the  pact  which  was 
enclosed.  The  Government  is  pleased  to  state  that  the  standpoint 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  as  set  forth  in 
the  note  corresponds  with  the  fundamental  German  conception  as 
it  was  communicated  in  the  note  of  April  27,  1928.  The  German 
Government  also  agrees  to  the  changes  in  the  preamble  of  the  draft 
of  the  pact.  It  is  therefore  pleased  to  be  able  to  state  that  it  takes 
cognizance  of  the  statements  made  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  contained  in  your  excellency’s  note  of  June  23, 
that  it  agrees  to  the  interpretation  which  is  given  therein  to  the 
provisions  of  the  proposed  pact,  and  that  it  is  accordingly  ready  to 
sign  this  pact  in  the  form  now  proposed. 

Accept  [etc.] 

Schubert 


The  French  Minister  oj  Foreign  Affairs  { Briand ) to  the  American 

Ambassador  {Herrick) 

[Translation) 

Paris,  July  14,  1928. 

Excellency:  By  your  letter  of  June  23  last  your  excellency 
was  good  enough  to  transmit  to  me  a revised  text  of  the  draft  treaty 
for  the  renunciation  of  war,  accompanied  by  the  interpretations 
given  to  it  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 


44 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


I beg  you  to  convey  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  all  the 
interest  with  which  the  Government  of  the  Republic  has  taken 
cognizance  of  this  new  communication,  which  is  suited  to  facilitate 
the  signature  of  the  treaty  whose  successful  conclusion  is  equally 
close  to  the  hearts  of  the  French  and  American  nations. 

First  of  all  it  follows  from  the  new  preamble  that  the  proposed 
treaty  indeed  aims  at  the  perpetuation  of  the  pacific  and  friendly 
relations  under  the  contractual  conditions  in  which  they  are  to-day 
established  between  the  interested  nations;  that  it  is  essentially  a 
question  for  the  signatory  powers  of  renouncing  war  “as  an  instru- 
ment of  their  national  policy,”  and  also  that  the  signatory  power 
which  hereafter  might  seek  to  promote  its  own  national  interests 
by  itself  resorting  to  war,  should  be  denied  the  benefits  of  the  treaty. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  is  happy  to  declare  that  it  is 
in  accord  with  these  new  stipulations. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  is  happy,  moreover,  to  take  note 
of  the  interpretations  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
gives  to  the  new  treaty  with  a view  to  satisfying  the  various  observa- 
tions which  had  been  formulated  from  the  French  point  of  view. 

These  interpretations  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

Nothing  in  the  new  treaty  restrains  or  compromises  in  any  manner 
whatsoever  the  right  of  self-defense.  Each  nation  in  this  respect 
will  always  remain  free  to  defend  its  territory  against  attack  or  inva- 
sion; it  alone  is  competent  to  decide  whether  circumstances  require 
recourse  to  war  in  self-defense. 

Secondly,  none  of  the  provisions  of  the  new  treaty  is  in  opposition 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  nor  with 
those  of  the  Locarno  treaties  or  the  treaties  of  neutrality. 

Moreover,  any  violation  of  the  new  treaty  by  one  of  the  contract- 
ing parties  would  automatically  release  the  other  contracting  parties 
from  their  obligations  to  the  treaty-breaking  state. 

Finally,  the  signature  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  now  offered  to  all  the  signatory  powers  of  the  treaties  concluded 
at  Locarno  and  which  it  is  disposed  to  offer  to  all  powers  parties  to 
treaties  of  neutrality,  as  well  as  the  adherence  made  possible  to  other 
powers,  is  of  a nature  to  give  the  new  treaty,  in  as  full  measure  as  can 
practically  be  desired,  the  character  of  generality  which  accords  with 
the  views  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic. 

Thanks  to  the  clarification  given  by  the  new  preamble  and  thanks, 
moreover,  to  the  interpretations  given  to  the  treaty,  the  Government 
of  the  Republic  congratulates  itself  that  the  new  convention  is  com- 
patible with  the  obligations  of  existing  treaties  to  which  France  is 
otherwise  a contracting  party,  and  the  integral  respect  of  which  of 
necessity  is  imperatively  imposed  upon  her  by  good  faith  and  loyalty. 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  45 

In  this  situation  and  under  these  conditions,  the  Government  of 
the  Republic  is  happy  to  be  able  to  declare  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  that  it  is  now  entirely  disposed  to  sign  the  treaty  as 
proposed  by  the  letter  of  your  excellency  of  June  23,  1928. 

At  the  moment  of  thus  assuring  its  contribution  to  the  realization 
of  a long-matured  project,  all  the  moral  significance  of  which  it  had 
gauged  from  the  beginning,  the  Government  of  the  Republic  desires 
to  render  homage  to  the  generous  spirit  in  which  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  has  conceived  this  new  manifestation  of  human 
fraternity,  which  eminently  conforms  to  the  profound  aspirations  of 
the  French  people  as  well  as  of  the  American  people  and  responds  to 
the  sentiment,  more  and  more  widely  shared  among  peoples,  of  inter- 
national solidarity. 

Please  accept  [etc.] 

Aristide  Briand 


The  Irish  Free  State  Minister  for  External  Affairs  ( McGMligan ) to  the 
American  Minister  (Sterling)1 

Dublin,  July  14,  1928. 

Excellency:  Your  excellency’s  note  of  the  23d  June  enclosing  a 
revised  draft  of  proposed  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  has  been 
carefully  studied  by  the  Government  of  the  Irish  Free  State. 

As  I informed  you  in  my  note  of  the  30th  May,  the  Government 
of  the  Irish  Free  State  were  prepared  to  accept  unreservedly  the 
draft  treaty  proposed  by  your  Government  on  the  13th  April,  holding, 
as  they  did,  that  neither  their  right  of  self-defence  nor  their  com- 
mitments under  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  were  in  any 
way  prejudiced  by  its  terms. 

The  draft  treaty  as  revised  is  equally  acceptable  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Irish  Free  State,  and  I have  the  honour  to  inform  you 
that  they  are  prepared  to  sign  it  in  conjunction  with  such  other 
governments  as  may  be  so  disposed.  As  the  effectiveness  of  the 
proposed  treaty  as  an  instrument  for  the  suppression  of  war  depends 
to  a great  extent  upon  its  universal  application,  the  Government  of 
the  Irish  Free  State  hope  that  the  treaty  may  meet  with  the  appro- 
bation of  the  other  governments  to  whom  it  has  been  sent  and  that  it 
may  subsequently  be  accepted  by  all  the  other  powers  of  the  world. 

Accept  [etc.] 

P.  McGilligan 


1 Text  as  transmitted  by  telegram  from  the  Minister  in  the  Irish  Free  State. 


46  GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 

The  Italian  Minister  oj  Foreign  Affairs  ( Mussolini ) to  the  American 
Ambassador  ( Fletcher ) 

[Translation] 

Rome,  July  15,  1928. 

Excellency:  I have  the  honor  to  refer  to  the  letter  which,  under 
instructions  of  your  Government,  your  excellency  addressed  to  me 
under  date  of  the  23d  of  June  last  and  to  ask  your  excellency  to  inform 
your  Government  as  follows: 

The  Royal  Government,  which  has  attentively  examined  the  last 
draft  of  a treaty  for  the  elimination  of  war  proposed  by  the  United 
States,  takes  note  of  and  agrees  with  the  interpretation  of  the  said 
treaty  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  sets  forth  in  the 
above-mentioned  note  of  June  23  last  and  on  this  premise  declares 
that  it  is  disposed  to  proceed  to  the  signature  thereof. 

I am  happy  [etc.] 

Mussolini 


The  Canadian  Secretary  oj  State  jor  External  Affairs  ( Mackenzie 
King ) to  the  American  Minister  (Phillips) 

Ottawa,  July  16,  1928. 

Sir:  I desire  to  acknowledge  your  note  of  June  23  and  the  revised 
draft  which  it  contained  of  the  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war, 
and  to  state  that  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Canada  cordially 
accepts  the  treaty  as  revised  and  is  prepared  to  participate  in  its 
signature. 

Accept  [etc.l 

W.  L.  Mackenzie  King 


The  Belgian  Minister  oj  Foreign  Affairs  ( Hymans ) to  the  American 

Ambassador  ( Gibson ) 

[Translation] 

Brussels,  July  17,  1928. 

Mr.  Ambassador:  The  Government  of  the  King  has  examined  with 
lively  sympathy  the  letter  of  June  23  in  which,  acting  under  instruc- 
tions from  your  Government,  you  have  been  good  enough  to  invite 
Belgium  to  conclude  a multilateral  treaty  providing  that  the  signa- 
tory states  bind  themselves  to  renounce  war  as  an  instrument  of 
national  policy. 

Belgium  is  deeply  attached  to  peace.  She  has  always  worked 
actively  for  the  realization  of  movements  tending  to  consolidate 
peace.  She  is  therefore  happy  to  pay  her  tribute  to  the  idea  inspiring 
the  draft  treaty. 

The  text  prepared  by  the  Government  of  Washington  commands 
the  full  approbation  of  the  Royal  Government.  This  Government 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  47 

notes  with  satisfaction  the  explanations  and  interpretations  contained 
in  your  excellency’s  letter.  It  is  pleased  to  note  that  the  proposed 
pact  will  maintain  unimpaired  the  rights  and  obligations  arising  from 
the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  from  the  Locarno  agree- 
ments which  constitute  for  Belgium  fundamental  guaranties  of 
security. 

The  Belgian  Government  highly  appreciates  the  action  of  the 
American  Government  which  permits  it  to  join  in  the  great  work 
destined  to  develop  the  spirit  of  peace  throughout  the  world  and  to 
diminish  in  future  the  risk  of  new  catastrophes. 

The  Royal  Government  would  be  grateful  if  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  would  inform  it  as  to  the  date  and  place  which 
it  may  choose  for  the  signing  of  the  treaty. 

I avail  [etc.] 

Hymans 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ) to 
the  American  Charge  ( Atherton ) 

London,  July  18,  1928. 

Sir:  I am  happy  to  be  able  to  inform  you  that  after  carefully 
studying  the  note  which  you  left  with  me  on  the  23d  June,  transmit- 
ting the  revised  text  of  the  draft  of  the  proposed  treaty  for  the 
renunciation  of  war,  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain 
accept  the  proposed  treaty  in  the  form  transmitted  by  you  and  will 
be  glad  to  sign  it  at  such  time  and  place  as  may  be  indicated  for  the 
purpose  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

My  Government  have  read  with  interest  the  explanations  contained 
in  your  note  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  draft  treaty,  and  also  the  com- 
ments which  it  contains  upon  the  considerations  advanced  by  other 
powers  in  the  previous  diplomatic  correspondence. 

You  will  remember  that  in  my  previous  communication  of  the  19th 
May  I explained  how  important  it  was  to  my  Government  that  the 
principle  should  be  recognised  that  if  one  of  the  parties  to  this  pro- 
posed treaty  resorted  to  war  in  violation  of  its  terms,  the  other  parties 
should  be  released  automatically  from  their  obligations  towards  that 
party  under  the  treaty.  I also  pointed  out  that  respect  for  the  obliga- 
tions arising  out  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  of  the 
Locarno  treaties  was  the  foundation  of  the  policy  of  the  government 
of  this  country,  and  that  they  could  not  agree  to  any  new  treaty 
which  would  weaken  or  undermine  these  engagements. 

The  stipulation  now  inserted  in  the  preamble  under  which  any 
signatory  power  hereafter  seeking  to  promote  its  national  interests 
by  resort  to  war  against  another  signatory  is  to  be  denied  the  benefits 
furnished  by  the  treaty  is  satisfactory  to  my  Government,  and  is 
sufficient  to  meet  the  first  point  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 


48 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain  do  not  consider,  after 
mature  reflection,  that  the  fulfilment  of  the  obligations  which  they 
have  undertaken  in  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  in 
the  treaty  of  Locarno  is  precluded  by  their  acceptance  of  the  pro- 
posed treaty.  They  concur  in  the  view  enunciated  by  the  German 
Government  in  their  note  of  the  27th  April  that  those  obligations  do 
not  contain  anything  which  could  conflict  with  the  treaty  proposed 
by  the  United  States  Government. 

My  Government  have  noted  with  peculiar  satisfaction  that  all  the 
parties  to  the  Locarno  treaty  are  now  invited  to  become  original 
signatories  of  the  new  treaty,  and  that  it  is  clearly  the  wish  of  the 
United  States  Government  that  all  members  of  the  League  should 
become  parties  either  by  signature  or  accession.  In  order  that  as 
many  states  as  possible  may  participate  in  the  new  movement,  I 
trust  that  a general  invitation  will  be  extended  to  them  to  do  so. 

As  regards  the  passage  in  my  note  of  the  19th  May  relating  to 
certain  regions  of  which  the  welfare  and  integrity  constitute  a special 
and  vital  interest  for  our  peace  and  safety,  I need  only  repeat  that 
His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain  accept  the  new  treaty 
upon  the  understanding  that  it  does  not  prejudice  their  freedom  of 
action  in  this  respect. 

I am  entirely  in  accord  with  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Kellogg 
in  his  speech  of  the  28th  April  that  the  proposed  treaty  does  not 
restrict  or  impair  in  any  way  the  right  of  self-defence,  as  also  with  his 
opinion  that  each  state  alone  is  competent  to  decide  when  circum- 
stances necessitate  recourse  to  war  for  that  purpose. 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  explanations,  His  Majesty’s  Govern- 
ment in  Great  Britain  are  glad  to  join  with  the  United  States  and 
with  all  other  governments  similarly  disposed  in  signing  a definitive 
treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  in  the  form  transmitted  in  your 
note  of  the  23d  June.  They  rejoice  to  be  associated  with  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  other  parties 
to  the  proposed  treaty  in  a further  and  signal  advance  in  the  out- 
lawry of  war. 

I have  [etc.] 

Austen  Chamberlain 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ),  on 

behalf  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  to  the  American  Charge 

(. Atherton ) 

London,  July  18,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  you  were  so  good  as  to  address  to  me  on 
June  23  last  you  stated  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
would  be  glad  to  be  informed  whether  His  Majesty’s  Government  in 
the  Commonwealth  of  Australia  were  willing  to  join  with  the  United 
States  and  other  similarly  disposed  governments  in  signing  a defin- 
itive treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  in  the  form  of  the  draft 
treaty  enclosed  in  your  note. 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  49 

2.  I now  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that  His  Majesty’s  Government 
in  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia  have  given  the  most  careful 
consideration  to  your  note  above  mentioned  and  to  the  revised  draft 
treaty  which  accompanied  it,  and  that  they  accept  the  assurance 
given  by  the  United  States  Secretary  of  State  that  the  right  of  self- 
defence  of  a signatory  state  will  not  be  impaired  in  any  way  by 
acceptance  of  the  proposed  treaty. 

3.  The  Commonwealth  Government  have  further  observed  that  it 
is  stated  in  your  note  of  June  23  that  the  preamble  to  the  revised 
treaty  accords  expressed  recognition  to  the  principle  that  if  one 
signatory  state  resorts  to  war  in  violation  of  the  treaty,  the  other 
signatory  states  will  be  released  from  their  obligations  under  the 
treaty  to  that  state.  They  accept  this  declaration  that  the  preamble 
in  this  respect  is  to  be  taken  as  a part  of  the  substantive  provisions 
of  the  treaty  itself. 

4.  They  have  also  particularly  examined  the  draft  treaty  from  the 
point  of  view  of  its  relationship  to  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  and  in  this  connexion  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  latter  instrument. 

5.  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia 
add  that  the  foregoing  are  the  only  questions  to  which  the  proposed 
treaty  gives  rise  in  which  they  are  especially  interested.  As  the  text 
of  the  treaty  which  has  now  been  submitted  is  completely  satisfactory 
to  them  so  far  as  these  specific  points  are  concerned,  they  will  be 
quite  agreeable  to  signing  it  in  its  present  form. 

I have  [etc.] 

Austen  Chamberlain 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  {Chamberlain) , on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  India,  to  the  American  Charge  ( Atherton ) 

London,  July  18,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  you  were  so  good  as  to  address  to  me  on  June 
23  last  you  stated  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  be 
glad  to  be  informed  whether  the  Government  of  India  were  willing  to 
join  with  the  United  States  and  other  similarly  disposed  governments 
in  signing  a definitive  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  in  the  form 
of  the  draft  treaty  enclosed  in  your  note. 

2.  I now  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that  the  Government  of  India 
associate  themselves  whole-heartedly  and  most  gladly  with  the  terms 
of  the  note  which  I have  had  the  honour  to  address  to  you  to-day 
notifying  you  of  the  willingness  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  in 
Great  Britain  to  sign  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war 
as  proposed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

I have  [etc.] 


Austen  Chamberlain 


50 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  ( Chamberlain ),  on 
behalf  of  the  Government  of  New  Zealand,  to  the  American  Charge 
( Atherton ) 

London,  July  18,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  you  were  so  good  as  to  address  to  me  on 
June  23  last  you  stated  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
would  be  glad  to  be  informed  whether  His  Majesty’s  Government  in 
New  Zealand  were  willing  to  join  with  the  United  States  and  other 
similarly  disposed  governments  in  signing  a definitive  treaty  for  the 
renunciation  of  war  in  the  form  of  the  draft  treaty  enclosed  in  your 
note. 

2.  I now  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that  His  Majesty’s  Government 
in  New  Zealand  desire  to  associate  themselves  with  the  terms  of  the 
note  which  I have  had  the  honour  to  address  to  you  to-day  notifying 
you  of  the  willingness  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  Great  Britain 
to  sign  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  as  proposed 
by  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  His  Majesty’s  Govern- 
ment in  New  Zealand  desire  me  to  add  that  they  will  have  the 
utmost  satisfaction,  in  cooperation  with  His  Majesty’s  governments 
in  other  parts  of  the  British  Empire,  in  joining  with  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  and  with  all  other  governments  similarly  dis- 
posed in  signing  a treaty  in  the  form  proposed. 

I have  [etc.] 

Austen  Chamberlain 


The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  A fairs  ( Chamberlain ),  on 

behalf  of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  to  the  American  Charge 

{Atherton) 

London,  July  18,  1928. 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  you  were  so  good  as  to  address  to  me  on 
June  23  last  you  stated  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
would  be  glad  to  be  informed  whether  His  Majesty’s  Government  in 
the  Union  of  South  Africa  were  willing  to  join  with  the  United  States 
and  other  similarly  disposed  governments  in  signing  a definitive 
treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war  in  the  form  of  the  draft  treaty 
enclosed  in  your  note. 

2.  I now  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that  the  following  message  has 
been  received  by  telegraph  from  General  Hertzog,  Minister  of  Exter- 
nal Affairs  of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  for  communication  to  you: 

On  behalf  of  His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  I have 
the  honour  to  inform  you  that  my  Government  have  given  their  most  serious 
consideration  to  the  new  draft  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war,  submitted  in 
your  note  of  23d  June,  and  to  the  observations  accompanying  it. 

My  Government  note  with  great  satisfaction  (a)  that  it  is  common  cause 
that  the  right  of  legitimate  self-defence  is  not  affected  by  the  terms  of  the  new 
draft;  (f>)  that,  according  to  the  preamble,  any  signatory  who  shall  seek  to 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  51 


promote  its  national  interests  by  resort  to  war  shall  forfeit  the  benefits  of  the 
treaty;  and  (c)  that  the  treaty  is  open  to  accession  by  all  powers  of  the 
world. 

My  Government  have  further  examined  the  question  whether  the  provisions 
of  the  present  draft  are  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  Covenant  of  the 
League  of  Nations  by  which  they  are  bound,  and  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  that  the  objects  which  the  League  of  Nations  was 
constituted  to  serve  can  but  be  promoted  by  members  of  the  League  of  Nations 
participating  in  the  proposed  treaty. 

His  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  have  therefore  very 
great  pleasure  in  expressing  their  willingness  to  sign,  together  with  all  other 
powers  which  might  be  similarly  inclined,  the  treaty  in  the  form  proposed  in 
your  note  under  reference. 

I have  [etc.] 

Austen  Chamberlain 


The  Czechoslovak  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  ( Benes)  to  the  American 

Minister  ( Einstein ) 

[Translation] 

Prague,  July  20,  1928. 

Mr.  Minister:  I have  had  the  honor  of  receiving  your  excellency’s 
letter  of  June  23  by  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
invites  the  Government  of  the  Czechoslovak  Republic  to  sign  the 
proposed  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war.  The  same  invitation 
was  transmitted  to  our  representative  in  Washington.  The  letter 
contains  in  addition  to  the  integral  text  of  the  proposed  treaty  a 
commentary  on  the  text  which  explains  the  remarks  of  the  French 
Government  and  indicates  in  detail  the  meaning  and  the  significance 
which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  attaches  to  the  multi- 
lateral treaty  in  the  event  of  the  treaty’s  signature,  ratification  and 
enactment. 

I have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  your  excellency  by  this  note  the 
reply  of  the  Czechoslovak  Government. 

1.  First  I would  very  respectfully  thank  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  for  having  addressed  its  invitation  to  us.  From  the 
beginning  we  have  followed  the  negotiations  between  the  French  and 
American  Governments  on  the  subject  of  the  pact  for  the  renunciation 
of  war  with  the  greatest  sympathy  and  attention,  and  were  ready  at 
any  moment  to  associate  ourselves  with  this  noble  undertaking,  which 
marks  a memorable  date  in  the  history  of  the  world  after  the  war. 
In  our  negotiations  which  I have  had  the  honor,  during  the  last  few 
months,  to  carry  on  with  the  representatives  of  the  United  States, 
France  and  Great  Britain,  I have  several  times  emphasized  the 
importance  of  this  act  and  the  political  necessity  of  associating  thereto 
the  other  powers  also  and  especially  those  who  have  assumed  obliga- 


52 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


tions  by  their  negotiations  at  Locarno  in  1925.  The  Government  of 
the  United  States,  agreeing  fully  in  this  with  the  other  powers,  has 
been  good  enough  to  recognize  the  justice  of  this  point  of  view  and 
addressed  to  us  its  invitation.  The  Czechoslovak  Government 
attributes  thereto  a considerable  political  importance  and  warmly 
thanks  the  Washington  Government. 

2.  In  accordance  with  the  negotiations  prior  to  the  signing  of  the 
treaty,  as  well  as  by  the  changes  made  in  the  preamble  from  the 
original  text,  and  from  the  explanations  contained  in  your  excellency’s 
letter  of  June  23,  1928,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  nothing  in  this  treaty  in 
opposition  either  to  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  or  to  those  of  the  Locarno  treaties  or  the  neutrality  treaties, 
or,  in  general,  to  the  obligations  contained  in  existing  treaties  which 
the  Czechoslovak  Republic  has  hitherto  made. 

3.  From  the  explanations  given  in  your  excellency’s  letter  it  is 
further  brought  out  that  any  violation  of  the  multilateral  treaty  by 
one  of  the  contracting  parties  would  free  entirely  the  other  signatory 
powers  from  their  obligations  towards  the  power  which  might  have 
violated  the  stipulations  of  this  treaty;  it  is  furthermore  apparent 
that  the  right  of  self-defense  is  in  no  way  weakened  or  restricted  by 
the  obligations  of  the  new  treaty  and  that  each  power  is  entirely  free 
to  defend  itself  according  to  its  will  and  its  necessities  against  attack 
and  foreign  invasion. 

4.  As  thus  defined  both  in  the  text  of  the  preamble  and  in  the 
statements  of  your  excellency’s  letter,  the  goal  of  the  new  treaty, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Czechoslovak  Republic,  is  to  consoli- 
date and  maintain  peaceful  relations  and  peaceful  and  friendly  col- 
laboration under  the  contractual  terms  in  which  these  have  to-day 
been  established  between  the  interested  nations.  By  their  signature, 
the  contracting  parties  will  renounce  war  as  an  instrument  of  their 
national  policy  aimed  to  satisfy  their  selfish  interests.  This  would 
be  an  immense  benefit  for  humanity;  and  the  Government  of  the 
Czechoslovak  Republic  rejoices  to  see  that  the  American  Government 
is  ready  to  offer  participation  in  this  treaty  on  the  one  hand  to  the 
powers  who  are  parties  to  the  neutrality  treaties  and  on  the  other  to 
all  other  powers  in  order  to  invest  it  with  as  universal  a character  as 
possible. 

5.  The  Government  of  the  Czechoslovak  Republic  having  noted 
everything  contained  in  your  excellency’s  note  expresses  its  point  of 
view  on  this  subject  as  shown  in  the  foregoing,  thus  confirming  the 
explanations  of  your  note  of  June  23,  1928.  It  is  very  happy  to  be 
able  to  reply  in  the  affirmative  to  the  invitation  of  the  Washington 
Government  and  thanking  it  again  and  most  particularly  for  its 
generous  efforts  toward  consolidating  and  maintaining  world  peace 
declares  that  it  is  now  ready  to  sign  the  text  of  the  multilateral  treaty 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  53 

in  accordance  with  the  proposition  of  his  excellency  Mr.  Kellogg  as 
set  forth  in  your  excellency’s  letter  of  June  23,  1928. 

I venture  to  add  that  the  Government  of  the  Czechoslovak  Republic 
gladly  associates  itself  with  all  those  who  have  rendered  warm  homage 
to  the  noble  manifestation  for  world  peace  made  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  and  that  the  foreign  policy  of  our  country  sees 
therein  the  realization  of  the  ends  which  it  has  pursued  for  ten  years. 
Pray  accept  [etc.] 

Eduard  Benes 


The  Japanese  Minister  jor  Foreign  Affairs  ( Tanaka ) to  the  American 

Charge  ( Neville ) 

[Translation] 

Tokyo,  July  20,  1928. 

Mr.  Charge  : I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
note  of  the  23d  ultimo  in  which  you  recall  to  my  attention  your  Gov- 
ernment’s identic  note  of  the  13th  of  April  of  this  year,  enclosing, 
togetherwith  certain  correspondence,  the  preliminary  draft  of  a treaty, 
and  inquiring  whether  this  Government  were  in  a position  to  give 
favorable  consideration  to  the  latter.  Your  note  under  reply  further 
recalls  that  on  the  20th  of  April  the  Government  of  the  French 
Republic  circulated  among  the  interested  governments  an  alternative 
draft  treaty,  and  that  on  the  28th  of  April  the  Secretary  of  State  of 
the  United  States  of  America  explained  fully  the  construction  placed 
by  that  Government  on  their  own  draft,  in  view  of  the  matter 
emphasized  in  the  French  alternative. 

You  now  further  inform  me  that  the  British,  German,  and  Italian 
Governments  have  replied  to  your  Government’s  notes  of  the  13th 
April  last,  and  that  the  Governments  of  the  British  self-governing 
dominions  and  of  India  have  likewise  replied  to  invitations  addressed 
to  them  on  the  suggestion  of  His  Britannic  Majesty’s  Government  in 
Great  Britain;  and  you  observe  that  none  of  these  Governments  has 
expressed  any  dissent  from  the  construction  above  referred  to,  or 
any  disapproval  of  the  principle  underlying  the  proposals,  nor  have 
they  suggested  any  specific  modifications  of  the  text  of  the  draft; 
and  you  proceed  to  reenforce  in  detail  the  explanations  made  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  in  his  speech  of  the  28th  April. 

You  then  transmit  for  the  consideration  of  this  Government  the 
revised  draft  of  a multilateral  treaty,  which  takes  in  the  British  self- 
governing  dominions,  India,  and  all  parties  to  the  Locarno  treaties,  as 
original  parties,  and  in  the  preamble  of  which  is  included  a state- 
ment which  is  directed  to  recognizing  the  principle  that  if  a state  goes 
to  war  in  violation  of  the  treaty,  the  other  contracting  powers  are 
released  from  their  obligations  under  the  treaty  to  that  state. 


54 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


Such  a multilateral  treaty  as  so  revised,  you  are  instructed  to  state 
your  government  are  ready  to  sign  at  once,  and  you  express  the  fer- 
vent hope  that  this  Government  will  be  able  promptly  to  indicate 
their  readiness  to  accept  it  in  this  form  without  qualification  or 
reservation.  You  conclude  by  expressing  the  desire  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  know  whether  my  Government  are 
prepared  to  join  with  the  United  States  and  other  similarly  disposed 
governments  in  signing  a definitive  treaty  in  the  form  so  transmitted. 

In  reply,  I have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  Japanese  Govern- 
ment are  happy  to  be  able  to  give  their  full  concurrence  to  the  alter- 
ations now  proposed,  their  understanding  of  the  original  draft  sub- 
mitted to  them  in  April  last  being,  as  I intimated  in  my  note  to  his 
excellency  Mr.  MacVeagh,  dated  the  26th  of  May  1928,  substan- 
tially the  same  as  that  entertained  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  They  are  therefore  ready  to  give  instructions  for  the  signa- 
ture, on  that  footing,  of  the  treaty  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  now 
proposed. 

I can  not  conclude  without  congratulating  your  Government  most 
warmly  upon  the  rapid  and  general  acceptance  which  their  proposals 
have  met  with.  The  Imperial  Government  are  proud  to  be  among 
the  first  to  be  associated  with  a movement  so  plainly  in  unison  with 
the  hopes  everywhere  entertained,  and  confidently  concur  in  the 
high  probability  of  the  acceptance  of  this  simple  and  magnanimous 
treaty  by  the  whole  civilized  world. 

I beg  [etc.] 

Baron  Giichi  Tanaka 


Note  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  adherence  to  the  General 
Pact  for  the  Renunciation  of  War. — Addressed  to  Albania,  Afghani- 
stan, Argentina,  Austria,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Bulgaria,  Chile,  China, 
Colombia,  Costa  Rica,  Cuba,  Denmark,  Dominican  Republic, 
Ecuador,  Egypt,  Estonia,  Ethiopia,  Finland,  Greece,  Guatemala, 
Haiti,  Honduras,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Latvia,  Liberia,  Lithuania, 
Luxemburg,  Mexico,  Netherlands,  Nicaragua,  Norway,  Panamd, 
Paraguay,  Persia,  Peru,  Portugal,  Rumania,  Salvador,  Kingdom  of 
the  Serbs,  Croats  and  Slovenes,  Siam,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzerland, 
Turkey,  Uruguay,  and  Venezuela  1 

August  27,  1928. 

I have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  Governments  of  Ger- 
many, the  United  States  of  America,  Belgium,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Canada,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  Union  of  South  Africa,  Irish  Free 
State,  India,  Italy,  Japan,  Poland,  and  Czechoslovakia  have  this 
day  signed  in  Paris  a treaty  binding  them  to  renounce  war  as  an 

1 The  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  was  invited  to  adhere  by  the  French 
Government  through  the  French  Ambassador  at  Moscow. 


NOTES  BETWEEN  UNITED  STATES  AND  OTHER  POWERS  55 

instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  relations  with  one  another 
and  to  seek  only  by  pacific  means  the  settlement  or  solution  of  all 
disputes  which  may  arise  among  them. 

This  treaty,  as  your  excellency  is  aware,  is  the  outcome  of  nego- 
tiations which  commenced  on  June  20,  1927,  when  M.  Briand,  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  French  Republic,  submitted  to  my 
Government  a draft  of  a pact  of  perpetual  friendship  between  France 
and  the  United  States.  In  the  course  of  the  subsequent  negotiations 
this  idea  was  extended  so  as  to  include  as  original  signatories  of  the 
antiwar  treaty  not  only  France  and  the  United  States  but  also  Japan, 
the  British  Empire  and  all  the  Governments  which  participated  with 
France  and  Great  Britain  in  the  Locarno  agreements,  namely, 
Belgium,  Czechoslovakia,  Germany,  Italy  and  Poland.  This  pro- 
cedure met  the  point  raised  by  the  British  Government  in  its  note  of 
May  19,  1928,  where  it  stated  that  the  treaty  from  its  very  nature 
was  not  one  which  concerned  that  Government  alone,  but  was  one 
in  which  that  Government  could  not  undertake  to  participate  other- 
wise than  jointly  and  simultaneously  with  the  Governments  in  the 
Dominions  and  the  Government  of  India;  it  also  settled  satisfactorily 
the  question  whether  there  was  any  inconsistency  between  the  new 
treaty  and  the  treaty  of  Locarno,  thus  meeting  the  observations  of 
the  French  Government  as  to  the  necessity  of  extending  the  number 
of  original  signatories. 

The  decision  to  limit  the  original  signatories  to  the  powers  named 
above,  that  is,  to  the  United  States,  Japan,  the  parties  to  the  Locarno 
treaties,  the  British  Dominions  and  India,  was  based  entirely  upon 
practical  considerations.  It  was  the  desire  of  the  United  States  that 
the  negotiations  be  successfully  concluded  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment  and  that  the  treaty  become  operative  without  the  delay  that 
would  inevitably  result  were  prior  universal  acceptance  made  a 
condition  precedent  to  its  coming  into  force.  My  Government  felt, 
moreover,  that  if  these  powers  could  agree  upon  a simple  renuncia- 
tion of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  there  could  be  no  doubt 
that  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  other  powers  of  the  world  would  find  the 
formula  equally  acceptable  and  would  hasten  to  lend  their  unquali- 
fied support  to  so  impressive  a movement  for  the  perpetuation  of 
peace.  The  United  States  has,  however,  been  anxious  from  the 
beginning  that  no  state  should  feel  deprived  of  an  opportunity  to 
participate  promptly  in  the  new  treaty  and  thus  not  only  align  itself 
formally  and  solemnly  with  this  new  manifestation  of  the  popular 
demand  for  world  peace  but  also  avail  itself  of  the  identical  benefits 
enjoyed  by  the  original  signatories.  Accordingly  in  the  draft  treaty 
proposed  by  it  the  United  States  made  specific  provision  for  partici- 
pation in  the  treaty  by  any  and  every  power  desiring  to  identify  itself 
therewith,  and  this  same  provision  is'found  in  the  definitive  instru- 


56 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


ment  signed  to-day  in  Paris.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  the  powers 
signing  the  treaty  have  recorded  in  the  preamble  their  hope  that  every 
nation  of  the  world  will  participate  in  the  treaty,  and  in  that  con- 
nection I am  happy  to  be  able  to  say  that  my  Government  has  already 
received  from  several  Governments  informal  indications  that  they  are 
prepared  to  do  so  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  This  convincing 
evidence  of  the  world-wide  interest  and  sympathy  which  the  new 
treaty  has  evoked  is  most  gratifying  to  all  the  Governments  con- 
cerned. 

In  these  circumstances  I have  the  honor  formally  to  communicate 
to  your  excellency  for  your  consideration  and  for  the  approval  of 
your  Government,  if  it  concurs  therein,  the  text  of  the  above-men- 
tioned treaty  as  signed  to-day  in  Paris,  omitting  only  that  part  of 
the  preamble  which  names  the  several  plenipotentiaries.  The  text 
is  as  follows: 

[Here  follows  the  text  of  the  treaty.] 

The  provisions  regarding  ratification  and  adherence  are,  as  your 
excellency  will  observe,  found  in  the  third  and  last  article.  That 
article  provides  that  the  treaty  shall  take  effect  as  soon  as  the  ratifi- 
cations of  all  the  powers  named  in  the  preamble  shall  have  been  de- 
posited in  Washington,  and  that  it  shall  be  open  to  adherence  by  all 
the  other  powers  of  the  world,  instruments  evidencing  such  adherence 
to  be  deposited  in  Washington  also.  Any  power  desiring  to  partici- 
pate in  the  treaty  may  thus  exercise  the  right  to  adhere  thereto  and 
my  Government  will  be  happy  to  receive  at  any  time  appropriate 
notices  of  adherence  from  those  Governments  wishing  to  contribute 
to  the  success  of  this  new  movement  for  world  peace  by  bringing 
their  peoples  within  its  beneficent  scope.  It  will  be  noted  in  this 
connection  that  the  treaty  expressly  provides  that  when  it  has  once 
come  into  force  it  shall  take  effect  immediately  between  an  adhering 
power  and  the  other  parties  thereto,  and  it  is  therefore  clear  that  any 
Government  adhering  promptly  will  fully  share  in  the  benefits  of  the 
treaty  at  the  very  moment  it  comes  into  effect. 

I shall  shortly  transmit  for  your  excellency’s  convenient  reference 
a printed  pamphlet  containing  the  text  in  translation  of  M.  Briand’s 
original  proposal  to  my  Government  of  June  20,  1927,  and  the  com- 
plete record  of  the  subsequent  diplomatic  correspondence  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a multilateral  treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war.  I shall  also 
transmit,  as  soon  as  received  from  my  Government,  a certified  copy 
of  the  signed  treaty. 


ADDRESSES  OF  THE  HONORABLE  FRANK  B. 
KELLOGG,  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 

The  War-Prevention  Policy  of  the  United  States  1 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  has  been  my  privilege  during  the  past  few 
months  to  conduct  on  behalf  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
negotiations  having  for  their  object  the  promotion  of  the  great 
ideal  of  world  peace.  Popular  and  governmental  interest  in  the 
realization  of  this  ideal  has  never  been  greater  than  at  the  present 
time.  Ever  since  the  World  War,  which  spelled  death  to  so  many 
millions  of  men,  spread  desolation  over  so  much  of  the  Continent 
of  Europe  and  shocked  and  imperiled  neutral  as  well  as  belligerent 
nations,  the  minds  of  statesmen  and  of  their  peoples  have  been 
more  and  more  concerned  with  plans  for  preventing  the  recurrence 
of  such  a calamity.  Not  only  has  the  League  of  Nations  been 
preoccupied  with  studies  of  security  and  world  peace,  but  members 
of  the  League  of  Nations  have  concluded  additional  special  treaties 
like  those  signed  at  Locarno  in  1925,  and  recently  at  Habana  the 
United  States  and  20  other  American  States,  including  17  members 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  expressed  by  formal  declaration  their 
unqualified  condemnation  of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy, 
and  agreed  to  call  a conference  to  draft  appropriate  treaties  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  will  never  be  a laggard  in 
any  effective  movement  for  the  advancement  of  world  peace,  and  the 
negotiations  which  I have  recently  been  carrying  on  have  grown  out 
of  this  Government’s  earnest  desire  to  promote  that  ideal.  They 
have  had  a dual  character,  having  been  concerned  in  part  with  the 
framing  of  new  arbitration  treaties  to  replace  the  so-called  Root 
treaties,  several  of  which  expire  by  limitation  this  year,  and  in  part 
with  the  antiwar  treaty  which  M.  Briand  proposed  to  me  last  sum- 
mer. I welcome  the  opportunity  which  you  have  afforded  me  to 
express  before  this  audience  my  views  on  these  questions  and  to 
explain  the  objects  and  aims  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
with  respect  thereto. 

In  the  first  place  it  should  be  clearly  understood  that  the  treaty 
of  arbitration  which  was  signed  last  month  with  France  has  no 

1 Address  delivered  before  the  Council  on  Foreign  Relations,  at  New  York 
City,  March  15,  1928. 


58 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


relation  whatsoever  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  M.  Briand  for  a 
treaty  declaring  against  war  and  renouncing  it  as  an  instrument  of 
national  policy.  It  is  true  that  the  preamble  to  the  arbitration 
treaty  recites  that  France  and  the  United  States  are  “eager  by  their 
example  not  only  to  demonstrate  their  condemnation  of  war  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  mutual  relations,  but  also  to 
hasten  the  time  when  the  perfection  of  international  arrangements 
for  the  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes  shall  have  elimi- 
nated forever  the  possibility  of  war  among  any  of  the  powers  of  the 
world,”  but  a preamble  is  not  a binding  part  of  a treaty.  If  war  is 
to  be  abolished  it  must  be  through  the  conclusion  of  a specific  treaty 
solemnly  binding  the  parties  not  to  resort  to  war  with  one  another. 
It  cannot  be  abolished  by  a mere  declaration  in  the  preamble  of  a 
treaty.  Even  though  without  legal  effect,  however,  a formal  expres- 
sion of  the  peaceful  aspirations  of  the  Governments  and  their  com- 
mon desire  to  perfect  a mechanism  for  the  pacific  settlement  of 
justiciable  disputes,  such  as  that  found  in  the  preamble  of  the  arbi- 
tration treaty,  is,  I believe,  very  helpful  since  it  publicly  defines  the 
positions  of  the  two  Governments  in  a matter  the  importance  of 
which  is  hard  to  exaggerate. 

The  arbitration  treaty  itself  I regard  as  a distinct  advance  over 
any  of  its  predecessors,  and  I hope  it  can  serve  as  a model  for  use 
in  negotiations  with  other  governments  with  which  we  have  no 
present  arbitration  treaty  or  where  the  existing  Root  treaties  shortly 
expire.  I have  already  instituted  negotiations  with  the  British,  Ger- 
man, Italian,  Japanese,  Norwegian,  and  Spanish  Governments  on 
the  basis  of  the  draft  treaty  which  I submitted  to  France  last 
December,  and  I have  indicated  to  all  inquiring  governments  that  I 
shall  be  pleased  to  conclude  with  them  new  treaties  similar  to  that 
recently  signed  with  France.  If  a comprehensive  series  of  such 
bilateral  treaties  can  be  put  into  effect  between  the  United  States 
and  the  other  nations  of  the  world,  I feel  that  a very  effective  mecha- 
nism for  the  pacific  settlement  of  justiciable  disputes  will  have  been 
established.  I attach  such  importance  to  the  treaty  just  concluded 
with  France  that  I shall  discuss  its  provisions  briefly  before  pro- 
ceeding to  a discussion  of  the  correspondence  which  has  been  ex- 
changed with  France  on  the  subject  of  the  so-called  Briand  proposal 

Article  1 of  the  new  arbitration  treaty  contains  the  language  of  the 
first  paragraph  of  the  first  article  of  the  Bryan  treaty  of  1914  pro- 
viding for  investigation  and  report  by  a permanent  international 
commission  of  all  disputes  not  settled  by  diplomacy  or  submitted 
to  arbitration.  My  purpose  in  including  this  reference  to  the  Bryan 
treaty  was  to  recognize  anew  the  efficacy  of  the  procedure  established 
under  the  Bryan  treaties  and  to  unite  by  reference  in  one  document 
the  related  processes  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  The  force  and 


ADDRESSES  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


59 


effect  of  the  Bryan  treaty  with  France  has  in  no  sense  been  impaired 
by  the  new  treaty,  nor  was  it  intended  that  it  should  be.  This  is  the 
understanding  of  both  Governments  and  notes  to  that  effect  have 
been  exchanged.  So  far  as  the  legal  effect  of  the  new  treaty  is  con- 
cerned, Article  1 could  be  left  out  entirely  and  mention  of  the  Bryan 
treaty  made  only  in  Article  2 where  there  is  reference  to  the  con- 
ciliation procedure  under  that  treaty. 

Article  2 provides  that — 

All  differences  relating  to  international  matters  in  which  the  high  contracting 
parties  are  concerned  by  virtue  of  a claim  of  right  made  by  one  against  the  other 
under  treaty  or  otherwise,  which  it  has  not  been  possible  to  adjust  by  diplomacy, 
which  have  not  been  adjusted  as  a result  of  reference  to  the  above-mentioned 
Permanent  International  Commission,  and  which  are  justiciable  in  their  nature 
by  reason  of  being  susceptible  of  decision  by  the  application  of  the  principles  of 
law  or  equity,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  estab- 
lished at  The  Hague  by  the  convention  of  October  18,  1907,  or  to  some  other 
competent  tribunal,  as  shall  be  decided  in  each  case  by  special  agreement,  which 
special  agreement  shall  provide  for  the  organization  of  such  tribunal  if  necessary, 
define  its  powers,  state  the  question  or  questions  at  issue,  and  settle  the  terms  of 
reference. 

It  also  contains  a clause  providing  that  the  special  agreement  must 
in  each  case  be  ratified  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 
This  is  the  usual  practice  in  the  United  States  and  I do  not  know  of 
a single  case  where  the  Senate  has  refused  to  consent  to  any  special 
agreement  of  arbitration. 

Article  3 excludes  from  arbitration  under  the  treaty  disputes  the 
subject  matter  of  which  is  within  the  domestic  jurisdiction  of  either 
of  the  parties,  involves  the  interests  of  third  parties,  depends  upon 
or  involves  the  maintenance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  depends 
upon  or  involves  the  observance  of  the  obligations  of  France  under 
the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations.  It  is  difficult  for  me  to  see 
by  what  claim  of  right  any  government  could  properly  request 
arbitration  of  disputes  covered  by  these  exceptions  since  few,  if  any, 
would  present  questions  justiciable  in  their  nature.  As  a practical 
matter,  therefore,  I do  not  feel  that  the  general  applicability  of  the 
new  treaty  is  materially  restricted  by  the  four  clauses  of  exclusion. 
The  Root  treaty  which  it  supersedes  contained  a clause  excluding 
from  its  scope  questions  affecting  “the  vital  interests,  the  independ- 
ence or  the  honor”  of  the  contracting  states.  This  clause  was 
borrowed  from  an  Anglo-French  arbitration  treaty  of  1903  and 
represented  the  reservations  generally  regarded  as  necessary  25  years 
ago.  Arbitration  has  repeatedly  proved  its  worth  since  then,  and 
inasmuch  as  such  vague  and  all-inclusive  exceptions  can  be  construed 
to  cover  almost  any  substantial  international  dispute  and  might  well 
operate  to  defeat  the  very  purpose  of  an  arbitration  treaty,  I decided 
to  eliminate  them  and  to  specify  with  particularity  the  questions 


60 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


excluded  from  arbitration.  In  this  respect  the  new  treaty  is  a much 
more  satisfactory  and  practical  instrument  for  the  adjustment  of 
justiciable  international  controversies,  and  it  is  only  justiciable 
questions  that  are  susceptible  to  arbitration. 

I do  not  agree  with  the  pronouncement  of  many  organizations  and 
publicists  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  international  arbitration  to  the 
effect  that  every  question  between  nations  should  be  arbitrated.  This 
is  a very  simple  and  all-inclusive  formula  but  it  will  not  stand  the 
test  of  careful  examination,  and  never  has  and  never  can  be  uni- 
versally adopted.  Let  us  consider  for  a moment  what  questions  are 
susceptible  of  arbitration  and  can  be  submitted  by  nations  to  the 
decision  of  an  international  court.  They  are  exactly  the  same  kind 
of  questions  as  can  be  arbitrated  between  citizens  of  the  United 
States  or  submitted  to  the  decision  of  a local  court  under  our  form 
of  government;  that  is  to  say,  they  are  questions  arising  under  con- 
tract or  under  the  law  of  the  land.  Applying  this  analog}7  in  inter- 
national relations,  we  find  that  the  questions  which  are  susceptible 
of  arbitration  or  impartial  decision  are  those  involving  rights  claimed 
under  a treaty  or  under  international  law.  A political  question  can- 
not be  arbitrated  because  there  are  no  principles  of  law  by  which 
it  can  be  decided,  and  unless  there  are  relevant  treaty  provisions 
requiring  construction,  no  nation  can  agree  to  arbitrate  purely  do- 
mestic questions  like  tariff,  taxation,  immigration,  and,  it  may  be 
said,  all  political  questions  involving  the  exercise  of  sovereignty 
within  the  nation’s  territorial  limits.  There  are  no  positive  rules 
of  international  law  applicable  to  such  questions  to  guide  arbitrators 
in  reaching  a decision. 

I am  confident  that  the  enthusiastic  supporters  of  the  theory  that 
all  questions  between  nations  should  be  submitted  to  arbitration 
have  not  realized  the  vital  difference  between  justiciable  and  political 
questions.  Take,  for  example,  the  question  of  immigration  which 
at  times  arouses  bitter  feelings  between  nations.  On  what  principle 
could  a government  arbitrate  this  question,  and  what  rules  could 
be  applied  to  guarantee  justice  to  the  disputants?  It  seems  to  me  we 
must  realize  that  so  long  as  the  world  is  composed  of  separate, 
sovereign  nations,  only  those  questions  can  properly  be  submitted  to 
arbitration  which,  being  justiciable  in  their  nature,  are  susceptible 
of  determination  by  the  application  of  recognized  rides  of  law  or 
equity.  Non-justiciable  or  political  questions  must,  if  they  threaten 
to  bring  on  hostilities,  be  adjusted  through  other  means,  such  as 
conciliation,  where  a disinterested  effort  is  made  to  reconcile  con- 
flicting points  of  view  without  finding  necessarily  that  either  party 
was  in  the  wrong. 

It  is  when  arbitration  cannot  or  will  not  be  invoked  by  the  parties 
that  conciliation  treaties  have  their  greatest  value  for  adjusting 


ADDRESSES  OK  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


61 


international  irritations  tending  to  inflame  public  opinion  and  im- 
peril the  peace  of  the  world.  One  of  the  first  of  our  treaties  estab- 
lishing a procedure  for  conciliation  was  the  so-called  Knox  treaty 
of  1911.  That  treaty,  which  was  also  a treaty  of  arbitration,  was 
never  proclaimed  by  the  President  because  of  certain  reservations 
attached  by  the  Senate  in  advising  and  consenting  thereto.  These 
reservations,  however,  did  not  affect  the  conciliation  provisions  of 
the  treaty  and  need  not  be  discussed  in  this  connection.  Our  next 
conciliation  treaties  were  the  Bryan  treaties  to  which  I have  already 
referred.  The  first  of  these  was  signed  in  1913  and  there  are  18  of 
them  now  in  force.  In  1923  we  became  parties  to  two  other  con- 
ciliation treaties,  namely,  that  signed  at  Washington  on  February  7, 
1923,  between  the  United  States  and  the  five  Central  American 
Republics,  and  that  signed  at  Santiago  on  May  3,  1923,  between  the 
United  States  and  15  Latin  American  countries.  Both  of  these 
treaties  have  been  ratified  by  the  United  States.  They  are  similar 
to  the  Bryan  treaties,  the  principal  point  of  difference  being  as  to 
the  manner  of  constituting  the  commissions  of  inquiry. 

The  Bryan  treaties  provide,  you  will  recall,  that  any  dispute  shall, 
when  ordinary  diplomatic  proceedings  have  failed  and  the  parties  do 
not  have  recourse  to  arbitration,  be  submitted  for  investigation  and 
report  to  a Permanent  International  Commission  composed  of  five 
members,  two  of  whom,  a national  and  a non-national,  being  desig- 
nated by  each  of  the  two  Governments,  and  the  fifth  member  by 
agreement.  The  commission  is  bound  to  report  within  a year  from 
the  date  on  which  it  takes  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  and  the  parties 
agree  not  to  resort  to  any  act  of  force  prior  to  the  commission’s 
report,  reserving,  however,  full  liberty  of  action  with  respect  to  the 
report  itself. 

The  United  States  has  been  a party  to  conciliation  treaties  for  15 
years,  and  while  there  has  never  yet  been  an  occasion  for  invoking 
them,  I know  of  no  reason  why  this  country  should  object  to  an 
inquiry  by  a commission  of  conciliation  if  war  is  threatened.  It  is 
claimed  in  some  quarters  that  purely  domestic  questions  might  be 
inquired  into  by  these  commissions  of  conciliation.  While  I cannot 
conceive  that  any  government  would  feel  justified  in  demanding  an 
inquiry  by  the  commission  into  a matter  solely  within  the  domestic 
jurisdiction  of  another  government,  I do  not  feel  that  the  point  is 
material.  The  object  which  is  sought  to  be  attained  by  conciliation 
treaties  is  the  prevention  of  war,  and  in  my  opinion  any  government 
can  well  afford  to  submit  to  inquiry  any  question  which  may  threaten 
to  involve  it  in  the  horrors  of  war,  particularly  when,  as  in  the  Bryan 
and  other  treaties  I have  just  mentioned,  the  findings  of  the  com- 


62 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


mission  have  no  binding  force  and  to  be  effective  must  be  voluntarily 
accepted. 

The  world  is  more  and  more  alive  to  the  necessity  of  preventing 
war,  and  I think  it  is  significant  that  the  Sixth  International  Con- 
ference of  American  States  which  recently  concluded  its  labors  at 
Habana  adopted  two  antiwar  resolutions  one  of  which  contains  the 
unqualified  statement  that  “the  American  Republics  desire  to  express 
that  they  condemn  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their 
mutual  relations,”  which,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  is  the  language  of 
M.  Briand’s  original  proposal  to  me.  The  other  resolution  contains 
the  statement  that  “war  of  aggression  constitutes  an  international 
crime  against  the  human  species”  and  the  declaration  that  “all 
aggression  is  considered  illicit  and  as  such  is  declared  prohibited. ” 
It  is  the  former  resolution  that  I regard  as  of  the  greatest  inter- 
est at  this  time  because,  of  the  21  states  represented  at  the  Habana 
Conference,  17,  while  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  were 
not  prevented  by  such  membership  from  joining  in  an  unquali- 
fied declaration  against  war.  This  general  resolution  is  also  impor- 
tant because  it  endorses  the  principle  of  compulsory  arbitration  for 
justiciable  disputes  and  provides  for  the  calling  of  a conference  in 
Washington  within  a year  to  draft  appropriate  treaties  of  arbitration 
and  conciliation. 

I have  discussed  at  some  length  the  provisions  of  the  new  arbitra- 
tion treaty  with  France.  I have  also  outlined  the  scope  and  purpose 
of  the  many  conciliation  treaties  which  the  United  States  has  con- 
cluded with  other  governments.  I know  of  but  one  other  form  of 
treaty  which  can  be  concluded  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  war 
and  that  is  a treaty  in  which  the  parties  specifically  bind  themselves 
not  to  resort  to  war.  It  is  this  kind  of  treaty  which  people  have  in 
mind  when  they  discuss  treaties  for  outlawing  war,  and  it  is  a novel 
idea  in  modern  international  relations. 

As  you  are  all  aware,  in  a communication  dated  June  20,  1927, 
M.  Briand  proposed  to  the  United  States  the  conclusion  of  a bilateral 
treaty  under  the  terms  of  which  France  and  the  United  States  would 
agree  to  renounce  war  as  an  instrument  of  their  national  policy 
towards  each  other.  This  treaty  provided,  first,  that — 

The  high  contracting  powers  solemnly  declare,  in  the  name  of  the  French 
people  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  that  they  condemn 
recourse  to  war  and  renounce  it  respectively  as  an  instrument  of  their  national 
policy  towards  each  other. 

and,  secondly,  that — 

The  settlement  or  the  solution  of  all  disputes  or  conflicts,  of  whatever  nature 
or  of  whatever  origin  they  may  be,  which  may  arise  between  France  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  shall  never  be  sought  by  either  side  except  by  pacific 
means. 


ADDRESSES  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


63 


This  important  and  inspiring  proposal  was  carefully  and  sympa- 
thetically studied  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  While 
we  might  well  have  hesitated  to  take  the  initiative  in  proposing 
such  a treaty  to  Europe,  the  invitation  from  France  afforded  us 
an  opportunity  to  examine  anew  the  whole  question  of  world  peace 
and  to  determine  in  what  practical  manner  we  could  best  cooperate. 
We  made  that  examination,  and,  in  my  note  of  December  28,  1927, 
after  expressing  the  sincere  appreciation  of  the  United  States  for 
the  offer  which  France  had  so  impressively  submitted,  I warmly 
seconded  M.  Briand’s  proposition  that  war  be  formally  renounced 
as  an  instrument  of  national  policy,  but  suggested  that  instead  of 
giving  effect  thereto  in  a bilateral  treaty  between  France  and  the 
United  States,  an  equivalent  multilateral  treaty  be  concluded  among 
the  principal  powers  of  the  world,  open  to  adherence  by  any  and 
all  nations,  thus  extending  throughout  the  world  the  benefits  of 
a covenant  originally  suggested  as  between  France  and  the  United 
States  alone.  The  powers  which  I suggested  be  invited  in  the  first 
instance  to  join  with  France  and  the  United  States  in  such  a treaty 
were  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Italy,  and  Japan. 

France,  I am  happy  to  say,  promptly  agreed  in  principle  to  the  idea 
of  a multilateral  treaty.  France  suggested,  however,  that  the  treaty 
provide  only  for  the  renunciation  of  wars  of  aggression,  explaining 
that  while  France  could  conclude  a bilateral  treaty  with  the  United 
States  providing  for  the  unqualified  renunciation  of  war,  the  con- 
clusion of  a similar  multilateral  treaty  presented  certain  difficulties 
in  view  of  the  obligations  of  France  under  the  Covenant  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  treaties  such  as  those  signed  at  Locarno  in  Octo- 
ber 1925  and  other  international  conventions  relating  to  guaranties 
of  neutrality.  The  French  Government  also  pointed  out  that  in 
September  1927  the  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  adopted  a 
resolution  condemning  aggressive  war  as  an  international  crime. 
In  these  circumstances  France  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  common 
object  of  the  two  Governments  could  best  be  attained  by  framing 
the  proposed  antiwar  treaty  so  as  to  cover  wars  of  aggression  only. 
I have  not  been  able  to  agree  to  that  reservation. 

My  objection  to  limiting  the  scope  of  an  antiwar  treaty  to  mere 
wars  of  aggression  is  based  partly  upon  a very  real  disinclination  to 
see  the  ideal  of  world  peace  qualified  in  any  way,  and  partly  upon 
the  absence  of  any  satisfactory  definition  of  the  word  “aggressor” 
or  the  phrase  “wars  of  aggression.”  It  is  difficult  for  me  to  see 
how  a definition  could  be  agreed  upon  which  would  not  be  open  to 
abuse.  The  danger  inherent  in  any  definition  is  recognized  by  the 
British  Government  which  in  a memorandum  recently  submitted  to 
the  Subcommittee  on  Security  of  the  Preparatory  Committee  on  Dis- 
armament of  the  League  of  Nations  discussed  attempted  definitions 


64 


GENERAL,  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


of  this  character,  and  quoted  from  a speech  by  the  British  Foreign 
Secretary  in  which  Sir  Austen  said : 

I therefore  remain  opposed  to  this  attempt  to  define  the  aggressor  because 
I believe  that  it  will  be  a trap  for  the  innocent  and  a signpost  for  the  guilty. 

I agree  with  Sir  Austen  on  this  point. 

It  seems  to  me  that  any  attempt  to  define  the  word  “aggressor” 
and  by  exceptions  and  qualifications  to  stipulate  when  nations  are 
justified  in  going  to  war  with  one  another,  would  greatly  weaken 
the  effect  of  any  treaty  such  as  that  under  consideration  and  virtu- 
ally destroy  its  positive  value  as  a guaranty  of  peace.  And  in  my 
last  note  to  the  French  Government  I stated  expressly  that  I could 
not  avoid  the  feeling  that  if  governments  should  publicly  acknowl- 
edge that  they  could  only  deal  with  this  ideal  of  world  peace  in  a 
technical  spirit  and  must  insist  upon  the  adoption  of  reservations 
impairing  if  not  utterly  destroying  the  true  significance  of  their 
common  endeavors,  they  would  be  in  effect  only  recording  their  im- 
potence to  the  keen  disappointment  of  mankind  in  general. 

In  my  note  of  February  27,  1928,  I also  discussed  at  some  length 
the  question  raised  by  the  Government  of  France  whether,  as  a 
member  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  as  a party  to  the  treaties  of 
Locarno  and  other  treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality,  France  could 
agree  with  the  United  States  and  the  other  principal  world  powers 
not  to  resort  to  war  in  their  mutual  relations  -without  ipso  facto 
violating  their  present  obligations  under  those  treaties.  I pointed 
out  that  if  those  obligations  could  be  interpreted  so  as  to  permit 
France  to  conclude  with  the  United  States  alone  a treaty  such  as  that 
proposed  by  M.  Briand,  it  was  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  they 
could  be  interpreted  with  equal  justice  so  as  to  permit  France  to 
join  with  the  L'nited  States  in  offering  to  conclude  an  equivalent 
multilateral  treaty  with  the  other  principal  powers  of  the  world. 
I stated  that  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  difference  between  the  bilateral 
and  multilateral  form  of  treaty  having  for  its  object  the  unqualified 
renunciation  of  war,  was  one  of  degree  and  not  of  substance,  and 
that  a government  able  to  conclude  such  a bilateral  treaty  should 
be  no  less  able  to  become  a party  to  an  identical  multilateral  treaty, 
since  it  could  hardly  be  presumed  that  members  of  the  League  of 
Nations  were  in  a position  to  do  separately  something  that  they 
could  not  do  together. 

In  these  circumstances  I expressed  the  earnest  hope  that  France, 
which  admittedly  perceives  no  bar  to  the  conclusion  of  an  unqualified 
antiwar  treaty  with  the  United  States  alone,  would  be  able  to  satisfy 
itself  that  an  equivalent  treaty  among  the  principal  world  powers 
would  be  equally  consistent  with  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations, 
adding  that  if  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  could  not,  without 
violating  the  terms  of  the  Covenant,  agree  among  themselves  and 


ADDRESSES  OP  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


65 


with  the  United  States  to  renounce  war  as  an  instrument  of  their 
national  policy,  it  seemed  idle  to  discuss  either  bilateral  or  multi- 
lateral treaties  unreservedly  renouncing  war.  In  that  connection  I 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  21  American  States  represented 
at  the  recent  Habana  Conference  adopted  a resolution  unqualifiedly 
condemning  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  mutual 
relations,  and  to  the  fact  that  17  of  the  21  States  represented  at  that 
Conference  are  members  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

I concluded  my  note  with  the  unequivocal  statement  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  desires  to  see  the  institution  of  war 
abolished  and  stands  ready  to  conclude  with  the  French,  British, 
Italian,  German,  and  Japanese  Governments  a single  multilateral 
treaty  open  to  subsequent  adherence  by  any  and  all  other  govern- 
ments binding  the  parties  thereto  not  to  resort  to  war  with  one 
another.  This  is  the  position  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  this  is  the  object  which  we  are  seeking  to  attain. 

I cannot  believe  that  such  a treaty  would  violate  the  terms  of  the 
League  Covenant  or  conflict  necessarily  with  the  obligations  of  the 
members  of  the  League.  Even  Article  10  of  the  Covenant  has  been 
construed  to  mean  that  League  members  are  not  inescapably  bound 
thereby  to  employ  their  military  forces.  According  to  a recent  state- 
ment by  the  British  Government,  many  members  of  the  League 
accept  as  the  proper  interpretation  of  Article  10  a resolution  sub- 
mitted to  the  Fourth  Assembly  but  not  formally  adopted  owing  to 
one  adverse  vote.  That  resolution  stated  explicitly: 

It  is  for  the  constitutional  authorities  of  each  member  to  decide,  in  reference 
to  the  obligation  of  preserving  the  independence  and  the  integrity  of  the  territory 
of  members,  in  what  degree  the  member  is  bound  to  assure  the  execution  of  this 
obligation  by  employment  of  its  military  forces. 

I earnestly  hope,  therefore,  that  the  present  negotiations  looking  to 
the  conclusion  of  an  unqualified  multilateral  antiwar  treaty  may 
ultimately  achieve  success,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  if  the  principal 
powers  of  the  world  are  united  in  a sincere  desire  to  consummate  such 
a treaty,  a formula  can  be  devised  which  will  be  acceptable  to  them 
all.  Since,  however,  the  purpose  of  the  United  States  is  so  far  as 
possible  to  eliminate  war  as  a factor  in  international  relations,  I 
cannot  state  too  emphatically  that  it  will  not  become  a party  to  any 
agreement  which  directly  or  indirectly,  expressly  or  by  implication, 
is  a military  alliance.  The  United  States  cannot  obligate  itself  in 
advance  to  use  its  armed  forces  against  any  other  nation  of  the 
world.  It  does  not  believe  that  the  peace  of  the  world  or  of  Europe 
depends  upon  or  can  be  assured  by  treaties  of  military  alliance,  the 
futility  of  which  as  guarantors  of  peace  is  repeatedly  demonstrated 
in  the  pages  of  history. 


66  GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 

Mr.  Chairman,  I must  not  claim  that  treaties  of  arbitration  and 
conciliation,  or  even  treaties  explicitly  renouncing  war  as  an  instru- 
ment of  national  policy,  afford  a certain  guaranty  against  those 
conflicts  between  nations  which  have  periodically  broken  out  since 
the  dawn  of  world  history.  In  addition  to  treaties  there  must  be 
an  aroused  public  conscience  against  the  utter  horror  and  fright- 
fulness  of  war.  The  peoples  of  the  world  must  enjoy  a peaceful 
mind,  as  it  has  been  said,  and  treaties  such  as  those  I have  dis- 
cussed this  evening,  and  the  efforts  of  statesmen  to  advance  the  cause 
of  world  peace,  can  only  be  regarded  as  a portion  of  the  problem.  I 
am  not  so  blind  as  to  believe  that  the  millenium  has  arrived,  but  I 
do  believe  that  the  world  is  making  great  strides  toward  the  pacific 
adjustment  of  international  disputes  and  that  the  common  people 
are  of  one  mind  in  their  desire  to  see  the  abolition  of  war  as  an 
institution.  Certainly  the  United  States  should  not  be  backward  in 
promoting  this  new  movement  for  world  peace,  and  both  personally 
and  officially  as  Secretary  of  State,  I shall  always  support  and  advo- 
cate the  conclusion  of  appropriate  treaties  for  arbitration,  for  con- 
ciliation, and  for  the  renunciation  of  war. 

The  French  Draft  of  the  Multilateral  Treaty  for  the 
Renunciation  of  War  1 * 

Mr.  President,  Mr.  Ambassador,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  . . . 

Last  year  M.  Briand  made  a great  proposition  to  the  United  States, 
and  M.  Briand,  the  French  Ambassador  and  I are  now  trying  to 
negotiate  a multilateral  treaty  denouncing  war  and  agreeing  not  to 
resort  to  it  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes.  I wish  to 
pay  my  sincere  tribute  to  the  great  ideals  and  the  high-mindedness 
and  patriotism  of  M.  Briand  in  his  work  for  peace.  I also  want  to 
pay  tribute  to  the  Ambassador  who  has  so  loyally  cooperated  with 
him.  We  have  different  view’s,  to  be  sure,  and  if  you  will  bear  with 
me  for  a few7  moments  I would  like  to  outline  the  present  situation. 

There  seem  to  be  six  major  considerations  w’hich  the  French  Gov- 
ernment has  emphasized  in  its  correspondence  and  in  its  draft  treaty; 
namely,  that  the  treaty  must  not  (1)  impair  the  right  of  legitimate 
self-defense;  (2)  violate  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations;  (3) 
violate  the  treaties  of  Locarno;  (4)  violate  certain  unspecified 
treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality;  (5)  bind  the  parties  in  respect  of  a 
state  breaking  the  treaty;  (6)  come  into  effect  until  accepted  by  all 
or  substantially  all  of  the  powers  of  the  world.  The  views  of  the 
United  States  on  these  six  points  are  as  follows: 

( 1 ) Selj-dejense.  There  is  nothing  in  the  American  draft  of  an 
antiwar  treaty  w'hich  restricts  or  impairs  in  any  w7ay  the  right  of  self- 

1 Excerpt  from  an  address  delivered  before  the  American  Society  of  Inter- 

national Law,  Washington,  April  28,  1928. 


ADDRESSES  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


67 


defense.  That  right  is  inherent  in  every  sovereign  state  and  is 
implicit  in  every  treaty.  Every  nation  is  free  at  all  times  and  regard- 
less of  treaty  provisions  to  defend  its  territory  from  attack  or  inva- 
sion and  it  alone  is  competent  to  decide  whether  circumstances  require 
recourse  to  war  in  self-defense.  If  it  has  a good  case,  the  world  will 
applaud  and  not  condemn  its  action.  Express  recognition  by  treaty 
of  this  inalienable  right,  however,  gives  rise  to  the  same  difficulty 
encountered  in  any  effort  to  define  aggression.  It  is  the  identical 
question  approached  from  the  other  side.  Inasmuch  as  no  treaty 
provision  can  add  to  the  natural  right  of  self-defense,  it  is  not  in  the 
interest  of  peace  that  a treaty  should  stipulate  a juristic  conception 
of  self-defense  since  it  is  far  too  easy  for  the  unscrupulous  to  mold 
events  to  accord  with  an  agreed  definition. 

(J8)  The  League  Covenant.  The  Covenant  imposes  no  affirmative 
primary  obligation  to  go  to  war.  The  obligation,  if  any,  is  secondary 
and  attaches  only  when  deliberately  accepted  by  a state.  Article  10 
of  the  Covenant  has,  for  example,  been  interpreted  by  a resolution 
submitted  to  the  Fourth  Assembly  but  not  formally  adopted  owing 
to  one  adverse  vote,  to  mean  that  “it  is  for  the  constitutional  authori- 
ties of  each  member  to  decide,  in  reference  to  the  obligation  of  pre- 
serving the  independence  and  the  integrity  of  the  territory  of  mem- 
bers, in  what  degree  the  member  is  bound  to  assure  the  execution  of 
this  obligation  by  employment  of  its  military  forces.”  There  is,  in 
my  opinion,  no  necessary  inconsistency  between  the  Covenant  and 
the  idea  of  an  unqualified  renunciation  of  war.  The  Covenant  can, 
it  is  true,  be  construed  as  authorizing  war  in  certain  circumstances 
but  it  is  an  authorization  and  not  a positive  requirement. 

(3)  The  treaties  of  Locarno.  If  the  parties  to  the  treaties  of 
Locarno  are  under  any  positive  obligation  to  go  to  war,  such  obliga- 
tion certainly  would  not  attach  until  one  of  the  parties  has  resorted 
to  war  in  violation  of  its  solemn  pledges  thereunder.  It  is  therefore 
obvious  that  if  all  the  parties  to  the  Locarno  treaties  become  parties 
to  the  multilateral  antiwar  treaty  proposed  by  the  United  States, 
there  would  be  a double  assurance  that  the  Locarno  treaties  would 
not  be  violated  by  recourse  to  arms.  In  such  event  it  would  follow 
that  resort  to  war  by  any  state  in  violation  of  the  Locarno  treaties 
would  also  be  a breach  of  the  multilateral  antiwar  treaty  and  the 
other  parties  to  the  antiwar  treaty  would  thus  as  a matter  of  law  be 
automatically  released  from  their  obligations  thereunder  and  free  to 
fulfil  their  Locarno  commitments.  The  United  States  is  entirely 
willing  that  all  parties  to  the  Locarno  treaties  should  become  parties 
to  its  proposed  antiwar  treaty  either  through  signature  in  the  first 
instance  or  by  immediate  accession  to  the  treaty  as  soon  as  it  comes 
into  force  in  the  manner  provided  in  Article  3 of  the  American  draft, 
and  it  will  offer  no  objection  when  and  if  such  a suggestion  is  made. 


68  GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 

(4)  Treaties  oj  neutrality.  The  United  States  is  not  informed  as 
to  the  precise  treaties  which  France  has  in  mind  and  cannot  there- 
fore discuss  their  provisions.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose, 
however,  that  the  relations  between  France  and  the  states  whose 
neutrality  she  has  guaranteed  are  sufficiently  close  and  intimate  to 
make  it  possible  for  France  to  persuade  such  states  to  adhere  season- 
ably to  the  antiwar  treaty  proposed  by  the  United  States.  If  this 
were  done  no  party  to  the  antiwar  treaty  could  attack  the  neutralized 
states  without  violating  the  treaty  and  thereby  automatically  freeing 
France  and  the  other  powers  in  respect  of  the  treaty-breaking  state 
from  the  obligations  of  the  antiwar  treaty.  If  the  neutralized  states 
were  attacked  by  a state  not  a party  to  the  antiwar  treaty,  the  latter 
treaty  would  of  course  have  no  bearing  and  France  would  be  as  free 
to  act  under  the  treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality  as  if  she  were  not  a 
party  to  the  antiwar  treaty.  It  is  difficult  to  perceive,  therefore,  how 
treaties  guaranteeing  neutrality  can  be  regarded  as  necessarily  pre- 
venting the  conclusion  by  France  or  any  other  power  of  a multilateral 
treaty  for  the  renunciation  of  war. 

(5)  Relations  with  a treaty-breaking  state.  As  I have  already 
pointed  out,  there  can  be  no  question  as  a matter  of  law  that  violation 
of  a multilateral  antiwar  treaty  through  resort  to  war  by  one  party 
thereto  would  automatically  release  the  other  parties  from  their  obli- 
gations to  the  treaty-breaking  state.  Any  express  recognition  of  this 
principle  of  law  is  wholly  unnecessary. 

0 6 ) Universality . From  the  beginning  it  has  been  the  hope  of 
the  United  States  that  its  proposed  multilateral  antiwar  treaty 
should  be  world-wide  in  its  application,  and  appropriate  provision 
therefor  was  made  in  the  draft  submitted  to  the  other  governments 
on  April  13.  From  a practical  standpoint  it  is  clearly  preferable, 
however,  not  to  postpone  the  coming  into  force  of  an  antiwar  treaty 
until  all  the  nations  of  the  world  can  agree  upon  the  text  of  such 
a treaty  and  cause  it  to  be  ratified.  For  one  reason  or  another  a 
state  so  situated  as  to  be  no  menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world  might 
obstruct  agreement  or  delay  ratification  in  such  manner  as  to  render 
abortive  the  efforts  of  all  the  other  powers.  It  is  highly  improbable, 
moreover,  that  a form  of  treaty  acceptable  to  the  British,  French, 
German,  Italian  and  Japanese  Governments,  as  well  as  to  the  United 
States,  would  not  be  equally  acceptable  to  most,  if  not  all,  of  the 
other  powers  of  the  world.  Even  were  this  not  the  case,  however, 
the  coming  into  force  among  the  above-named  six  powers  of  an 
effective  antiwar  treaty  and  their  observance  thereof  would  be  a prac- 
tical guaranty  against  a second  world  war.  This  in  itself  would  be 
a tremendous  service  to  humanity  and  the  United  States  is  not  willing 
to  jeopardize  the  practical  success  of  the  proposal  which  it  has  made 
by  conditioning  the  coming  into  force  of  the  treaty  upon  prior 
universal  or  almost  universal  acceptance. 


ADDRESSES  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


69 


Negotiations  for  the  Conclusion  of  a Treaty  for  the 
Renunciation  of  War  1 

Mr.  Chairman:  . . . It  is  known  to  all  of  you  that  in  June 

1927  M.  Briand,  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  made  an 
historic  proposal  to  the  United  States.  He  suggested  that  our  two 
countries  conclude  a treaty  condemning  war  and  renouncing  it  as  an 
instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  mutual  relations.  That 
proposal  was  carefully  considered  by  the  United  States,  and  the 
more  it  was  examined,  the  more  we  were  convinced  that  to  realize 
its  greatest  usefulness  M.  Briand’s  inspiring  idea  should  be  enlarged 
so  as  to  make  it  possible  to  bring  within  the  scope  of  such  a treaty  not 
only  France  and  the  United  States,  but  also  all  the  other  nations  of  the 
world.  The  French  Government  was  informed  of  our  views  and  for 
several  months  we  exchanged  notes  with  France  on  this  general 
subject.  Finally  on  April  13,  1928,  the  United  States  with  the  full 
approval  of  France  transmitted  for  the  consideration  of  the  British, 
German,  Italian,  and  Japanese  Governments  the  texts  of  the  diplo- 
matic notes  previously  exchanged  by  the  two  Governments.  At  the 
same  time  the  United  States  submitted  to  those  Governments  on 
its  own  initiative  a preliminary  draft  of  a treaty  for  the  renunciation 
of  war,  representing  in  a general  way  the  form  of  treaty  which  it  was 
prepared  to  sign.  The  four  Governments  addressed  were  asked 
whether  they  were  in  a position  to  conclude  such  a treaty. 

Encouraging  replies  have  now  been  received  from  them  all.  They 
have  all  expressed  cordial  approval  of  the  principle  underlying  the 
proposal  of  the  United  States,  and  have  indicated  a sincere  desire  to 
collaborate  in  the  conclusion  of  an  appropriate  treaty  for  the  re- 
nunciation of  war.  The  British  Government,  in  addition  to  inform- 
ing the  United  States  that  it  found  it  had  no  commitments  which 
would  prevent  signing  a treaty  such  as  we  suggested,  indicated  that 
the  Dominion  Governments  and  the  Government  of  India  would  be 
glad  to  become  original  signatories  of  the  treaty,  and  appropriate 
invitations  were  thereupon  sent  to  the  Governments  of  Canada,  the 
Irish  Free  State,  South  Africa,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  the 
Government  of  India.  The  replies  which  we  have  received  demon- 
strate that  the  several  governments  heartily  endorse  the  plan  and 
are  ready  and  willing  to  join  in  the  negotiation  of  a treaty  such  as 
that  proposed  by  the  United  States.  Other  governments  have  also 
informally  indicated  their  desire  to  participate  in  a treaty  for  the 
renunciation  of  war  and  I earnestly  hope  that  we  shall  soon  succeed 
in  reaching  an  agreement  as  to  the  precise  text  to  be  employed.  The 
force  of  public  opinion  in  this  country  and  abroad  has  already  made 

1 Excerpt  from  an  address  delivered  at  the  banquet  in  connection  with  the 
tercentenary  commemoration  of  the  founding  of  the  First  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  in  1628  on  the  Island  of  Manhattan,  at  New  York  City,  June  11,  1928. 


70 


GENERAL  PACT  FOR  THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  WAR 


itself  felt.  The  peoples  of  the  world  seem  unquestionably  to  want 
their  governments  to  renounce  war  in  the  most  effective  way  possible. 

The  antiwar  treaty  which  the  United  States  has  proposed,  and 
which  as  I have  said  has  its  origin  in  the  suggestions  made  by  M. 
Briand  a year  ago,  is  simple  and  straightforward.  That  grand  con- 
ception of  the  French  Foreign  Secretary  undoubtedly  had  its  inspira- 
tion in  the  deep-seated  desire  of  the  French  people,  as  well  as  all  the 
people  of  Europe,  to  avoid  another  great  cataclysm  of  war.  It  is 
significant  that  Europe  since  the  Great  War  has  been  engaged  in 
efforts  of  various  kinds  to  assuage  national  and  racial  animosities,  to 
settle  international  disputes,  and  to  prevent  war.  What  I believe, 
and  I am  convinced  that  the  leaders  of  the  governments  believe,  is 
that  there  should  be  one  more  step  in  this  effort,  and  that  is,  a simple 
declaration  against  war  as  an  institution  for  the  settlement  of  inter- 
national controversies.  Since  this  discussion  commenced  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  the  idea  has  appealed  with  increasing 
force  to  the  public  opinion  of  the  world.  As  one  looks  back  over 
the  history  of  the  four  years  of  that  unparalleled  carnage,  which  left 
its  trail  of  desolation  and  death,  one  cannot  believe  that  the  nations 
will  hesitate  to  commit  themselves  in  the  most  unqualified  and 
solemn  terms  to  the  renunciation  of  recourse  to  war. 

There  are,  of  course,  cynical  individuals  who  decry  all  efforts  to 
lessen  the  likelihood  of  war  and  belittle  in  particular  the  present 
negotiations.  There  are  others  who  believe  in  war  as  an  institution 
and  whose  support,  if  any,  will  be  cold  and  grudging.  But  I am 
convinced  that  those  of  us  who  believe  wholeheartedly  in  this  move- 
ment are  no  less  realistic.  We  know  that  the  peoples  of  the  world 
desire  peace  and  dread  any  new  international  conflict.  We  know 
that  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  becoming  more  and  more  articulate 
and  that  governments  are  becoming  more  and  more  responsive  to 
their  wishes.  We  now  find  peoples  and  governments  united  in  a 
common  and  sincere  desire  to  prevent  so  far  as  possible  the  outbreak 
of  any  war  anywhere  and  seriously  considering  the  best  form  of 
multilateral  treaty  to  give  effect  to  their  aspirations.  It  is  a most 
impressive  manifestation  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  man. 

With  the  passage  of  time  the  emphasis  in  our  present  negotia- 
tions is  being  placed  not  on  narrow  technical  considerations  of  a 
legalistic  nature,  but  on  the  broad  principles  underlying  the  entire 
idea.  It  is  peace,  not  war,  that  we  are  seeking  to  perpetuate  and  I 
am  firmly  convinced  that  the  simple,  straightforward,  unequivocal 
declaration  against  war  which  the  United  States  borrowed  from 
M.  Briand  and  incorporated  in  its  draft  treaty  is  the  one  that  has 
the  greatest  moral  value  and  the  one  that  will  in  the  long  run  com- 
mend itself  to  all  the  peoples  concerned.  It  has  no  hidden  meaning. 
It  is  easily  understood.  The  interpretation  placed  upon  it  by  the 


ADDRESSES  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE 


71 


United  States  has  been  publicly  stated  in  the  address  which  it  was 
my  privilege  to  deliver  a few  weeks  ago  before  the  American  Society 
of  International  Law.  The  accuracy  of  this  interpretation  has  been 
contested  by  no  government.  On  the  contrary,  many  governments 
have  indicated  that  they  agree  with  the  conclusions  set  forth  in  that 
address.  In  these  circumstances  is  it  too  much  to  hope  that  all 
may  find  themselves  in  the  near  future  able  to  sign  with  the  United 
States  a treaty  under  which  we  all  declare  in  the  names  of  our  re- 
spective peoples  that  we  condemn  recourse  to  war  for  the  solution 
of  international  controversies  and  renounce  it  as  an  instrument  of 
national  policy  in  our  relations  -with  one  another,  and  agree  that 
the  settlement  or  solution  of  all  disputes  or  conflicts  of  whatever 
nature  or  of  whatever  origin  they  may  be,  which  may  arise  among 
us,  shall  never  be  sought  except  by  pacific  means?  I do  not  think 
that  it  is  too  much  to  hope  that  such  a treaty  will  be  signed. 

I am  persuaded  that  the  time  has  come  when  a frank  renunciation 
of  war  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  should  be  made,  to  the 
end  that  the  peaceful  and  friendly  relations  now  existing  between  the 
peoples  of  the  world  may  be  perpetuated.  I am  convinced,  more- 
over, that  all  changes  in  these  relations  should  be  sought  only  bv 
pacific  means  and  be  the  result  of  a peaceful  and  orderly  process; 
and  any  nation  which  shall  hereafter  seek  to  promote  its  national 
interests  by  resort  to  war  should  be  denied  the  benefits  and  guaran- 
ties furnished  by  the  proposed  treaty.  This  is  the  object  of  the 
negotiations  in  which  fifteen  world  powers  are  now  engaged,  and  in 
the  name  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  I bespeak  the 
continued  support  of  this  and  every  other  church  in  the  present 
movement  for  the  promotion  of  world  peace. 


o 


( 


